Stability of valid IDN labels

John C Klensin klensin at
Mon Apr 21 21:17:46 CEST 2008

--On Sunday, 20 April, 2008 23:26 +0200 LB <lbleriot at>

> Dear John,
> As I said, my view is that of @larg, a co-owner of my portion
> of the Internet. I see my needs and your proposed solutions.
> That's why I started arguing with Jefsey, that my needs will
> not be "overwhelmed" by the constraints of the dominant
> services. And also because I think that my needs are a good
> example of their real needs when they encounter my clients.
> I know it's difficult. And I have no solution (that is the
> role of Jefsey, to document). But I need it is not worse. I
> need that to be better. And I know that it's getting worse
> very quickly when the solution is "more constraints."
> I read but do not speak English. I use the Google translator,
> and I read to see if it is almost readable.

Your English, assisted or otherwise, is much better than my
French.  We will need to be patient with each other, especially
where special terminology is concerned.

> I will not talk
> much. I just wanted three things:
> -- Allow the needs of the French language, as the first
> representative of linguistic diversity, not to be dismissed
> because our competitors had rejected Jefsey. And other French
> and @large on this list are not blocked. This seems OK.

As far as I know, only Jefsey is blocked.  

My impression is that French is adequately covered in both the
old and proposed new versions of IDNA, with no change between
the two.   There is a complication in conversions from
upper-case characters from which significant accents or other
markings may have been dropped but, if one considers all IDN
labels to be lower-case, that problem disappears.   If there are
problems with the representation of French, we need to hear
about them, ideally succinctly and with specific examples
(rather than with the excursions into philosophy to which we
have sometimes been treated).

> -- Help find a solution for the PR-action after watching the
> debate in recent years and have been attacked myself. I have
> some simple ideas. Rather than making appealsl, I would prefer
> to make a Draft.

Internet-Drafts are much preferable if you actually hope to
persuade anyone.    You should be aware, despite the confusion
about whether you and Jefsey were separate people, that the IETF
strongly dislikes banning people from posting to lists and that
such actions are taken only as an act of desperation after
alternatives of temporary suspensions and admonishments have
failed repeatedly.   While it may feel different to the handful
of people against which the mechanism has been used, just about
all that is necessary to avoid one is to stay on-topic on each
mailing list to which one posts and to avoid wild accusations,
personal attacks, and the like.

> -- Push other @large and  ISOC  to participate as to whether
> yes / no IDNA can be used or what.

As discussed in the draft Rationale document (if not clearly
enough, I would welcome advice) there are inevitably several
different pieces (or layers if you prefer) of the IDNA story.
The IETF discussions involve only the protocol and tables which
are, of necessity, global.  Most of the usability issues are, in
practice, much more the concern of those registering names and
of those implementing and selecting applications software.

> I understood that the first goal of the WG in the Charter was
> to confirm IDNA and say why you think IDNA is the only
> solution IETF, once and for all. For the MLTF is now free to
> work without creating confusion. And that all are in agreement
> - or it is IDNA is, or is a different architecture for the
> Internet.

If I understand this, yes.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list