Statements of policy (was: Re: Issues lists and the "preprocessing" topic : requirement for policy)

[Tina Dam]

Im interested as well. With adequate policies for registration we would not have the resolution issues that otherwise would occur. I don't necessarily think it's part of the IDNAbis work though.

Tina

> -----Original Message-----
> From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:idna-update-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of John C Klensin
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 2:00 PM
> To: Andrew Sullivan; idna-update at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Statements of policy (was: Re: Issues lists and the
> "preprocessing" topic : requirement for policy)
>
>
>
> --On Wednesday, 20 August, 2008 12:37 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
> <ajs at commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 08:48:04PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> >
> >>    Mark writes about Section 4.4: "While exact policies are
> >>    not specified as part of IDNA2008 and it is expected that
> >>    different registries may specify different policies, there
> >>    SHOULD be policies." This SHOULD is pointless, unless some
> >>    constraints or guidance are given. Otherwise my policy
> >>    could be "any valid IDNA label", which would be precisely
> >>    the same as no policy at all.
> >
> >>    Comment:
> >
> >>    implementers evaluate per-zone policies and respond with
> >>    decisions about what to display.  So, I don't think this is
> >>    pointless.  The problem is whether different language would
> >>    better describe the handoff.
> >
> > I have a great deal of sympathy with the idea that we ought to
> > say, "If you are implementing this, you ought to have a
> > policy."  I also have a great deal of sympathy with the
> > observation that, in the absence of guidance on how to express
> > those policies and also in the absence of any automatic way to
> > find out what the policies are, it's sort of difficult to see
> > the point of the text.  I wonder whether it would be worth
> > developing a way of expressing such policies.
> >
> > Such a development, I note, would go a long way to making
> > plain the meaning of the charter item, "Separate requirements
> > for valid IDNs at registration time (insertion of names into
> > DNS zone files), vs. at resolution time (looking up those
> > names)."
> >
> > Is there any interest in such work?  (I fully expect someone
> > to tell me it's out of scope given the charter.  I'm not
> > actually asking the WG to adopt work that isn't expressed as
> > an I-D yet, though, please note.)
>
> I'm interested.  I don't think it is an appropriate WG work
> item, at least until we get the current documents finished (your
> comment about the charter item, with which I agree,
> notwithstanding).  And I certainly don't have bandwidth until
> then.
>
>      john
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update