Comments on idnabis-rationale-01

Vint Cerf vint at
Fri Jul 25 00:52:24 CEST 2008

if A-Label is confined to the "xn-- <punycode lower case stuff>" then  
it is a subset of LDH


On Jul 24, 2008, at 5:33 PM, Tina Dam wrote:

> I agree with Cary that the terms are indeed being used, are  
> understood and very helpful. This in the part of the community that  
> is busy with for example policy development and needed a  
> terminology to ensure that they were understanding eachother and  
> talking about the same thing.
> I would be ok with a different term as well, but I don't have any  
> good ideas.
> Tina
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: idna-update-bounces at [mailto:idna-update-
>> bounces at] On Behalf Of Cary Karp
>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:51 AM
>> To: idna-update at
>> Cc: Frank Ellermann; John C Klensin
>> Subject: Re: Comments on idnabis-rationale-01
>> Quoting John:
>>> Again, I would welcome a different term, although I would also
>>> welcome comments from others, especially Tina and Cary, as to
>>> whether "LDH-label" has become sufficiently entrenched using the
>>> IDNA200X/IDNA2008 definition, that trying to retire it would
>>> create excessive confusion.
>> Wherever I've discussed it, people appear either to be quite eager to
>> adopt the A/U/LDH-label terminology, or retain whatever nomenclature
>> they had previously applied. Most noteworthy in the present  
>> context is
>> the close to rigorous use of the former among the gTLD registries and
>> in their dialog with browser developers. In other contexts, there are
>> varying degrees of interest in cultivating a uniform descriptive
>> framework, but I've never heard any complaint about the logical
>> disjunction between A and LDH labels.
>>> Perhaps we could try "traditional label"?
>> Unless the term "traditional" means something quite clear to the
>> technical community, I would strongly suggest that it not be woven  
>> into
>> the present narrative. Traditions change.
>> Quoting Frank, quoting John:
>>> <> apparently
>>> also uses the obvious definition of "LDH label".
>> That text was drafted well before the present discussion was  
>> initiated
>> and was clearly bound to a specific policy context. Absent a  
>> normative
>> reference, it defined its own terms and invoking them here is simply
>> not appropriate.
>>>> I suggest that your repeated efforts to turn A-label
>>>> back into a subset of LDH-label are part of what is
>>>> causing the confusion you cite.
>>> I'm not confused about "xn--" being LDH, and punycode
>>> output being LDH.  But I'm confused why you claim that
>>> they're something else, because they obviously are LDH.
>> I agree with John that this invocation of confusion is probably doing
>> more to obscure the intended meaning than it is to clarify it.
>> /Cary
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at

More information about the Idna-update mailing list