New version, draft-faltstrom-idnabis-tables-02.txt,
available
John C Klensin
klensin at jck.com
Tue Jun 12 19:02:00 CEST 2007
--On Tuesday, June 12, 2007 15:53 +0200 JFC Morfin
<jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> Dear Harald,
> you obviously measure the political impact of such a
> restriction not being very precisely documented.
> IDNA made a distinction between countries on the ASCII TLD
> basis. IMHO, if IDNAbis only enlarges the basis of this split,
> the IGF will simply conclude that the global approach is
> inadequate and call for another architecture.
Jefsey,
Regardless of anything else that is going on here, IDNA does not
make any distinctions at all based on TLDs, ASCII or otherwise.
It is a fairly fundamental consequence of the DNS design and
architecture (having nothing specific to do with IDNs) that
storage and lookup (matching) algorithms for fully-qualified
names and the labels that make them up cannot depend on location
in the hierarchy -- either depth or subtrees. Any
implementation of the DNS that assumes knowledge of the
language, script, or other properties of a given label based on
the label (TLD) at the top of its particular subtree is
non-conforming and almost certainly will not interoperate well
with other DNS implementations.
Independent of whether they would be a good idea or can be
enforced, one can make registration policy decisions about what
strings can be registered in particular subtrees and under what
conditions. But those restrictions have nothing to do with
IDNA (or IDNAbis) themselves -- the protocols just deal with
strings and labels.
john
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list