vint at google.com
Sat Jul 5 19:18:01 CEST 2008
Jefsey, you are misreading and potentially misrepresenting my position.
I am NOT saying that that ASCII issues are not part of the IDNABIS
charter, only that I believe the question of single character ascii
TLDs or SLDs are not an issue for this working group.
plainly there ARE ASCII issues associated with IDNs because of the
encoding methods we use.
With regard to single character U-Labels, I am not seeing a protocol-
based problem but I couched my comments in a way to elicit WG
reactions, not to declare a WG consensus on the matter.
On Jul 5, 2008, at 1:09 PM, JFC Morfin wrote:
> I should have been more detailed, for this answer of yours to be
> fully clear. I understand that there are two consensuses:
> - ASCII issues are no part of this WG-IDNABIS Charter. I personnaly
> think they are in this specific case, but indirectly. So, it is OK
> with me.
> - Single Unicode character names are no problem. I am OK with this
> At 18:55 05/07/2008, Vint Cerf wrote:
>> no, I was specific that my remarks were oriented solely to the IDN
>> question. I do not believe that our work on IDNs deals with the ASCII
>> LDH question except insofar as we are constrained to assure that our
>> mapping of IDN's expressed in some form of UNICODE does not conflict
>> with established practices associated with ASCII domain names. It is
>> clear that a valid IDN is a minimum of some 6 ASCII characters I
>> believe, and that means none of the IDN work will directly implnge on
>> questions about single character ASCII domain names at top level or
>> On Jul 5, 2008, at 12:52 PM, JFC Morfin wrote:
>>> At 18:20 05/07/2008, Vint Cerf wrote:
>>>> I concur that while this issue is of interest, it is not the
>>>> purpose of the idnabis effort to deal with this specific issue.
>>>> The idnabis documents may affect which characters can appear in
>>>> idns but not how many of them except perhaps the question of the
>>>> maximum number (?). Vint
>>> Can we take this as a WG-IDNABIS Chair consensus declaration that
>>> single letter names (ASCII an Unicode) are confirmed as no problem?
More information about the Idna-update