Comments on the Unicode Codepoints and IDNA Internet-Draft

Vint Cerf vint at
Tue Jul 29 14:09:47 CEST 2008


I did not intend for these to be interpreted as "the same" at all - I  
intended to imply that these were two different ways of dealing with  
problem characters.


On Jul 29, 2008, at 7:39 AM, Stéphane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 01:27:15AM -0700,
>  Vint Cerf <vint at> wrote
>  a message of 38 lines which said:
>> the issue might be better stated as "can these characters be so
>> readily used to cause confusionas to merit their banishment at
>> protocol level or warned against at "registration time" at all
>> levels in domain name hierarchy?
> But these two solutions are quite different. In the DNS, today, there
> are no "banishment at protocol level" even between confusable
> characters.
> Guidelines for registries ("Allowing the registration of <U+xxxx> is
> not a good idea") are a different thing. They are already used
> (section 3.5 "Preferred name syntax" of RFC 1034) and the work of the
> arabic script users is a good example of a work that should be used
> that way for IDNA.
> With "banishment at protocol level", we would never had the underscore
> for SRV records, it would have been forbidden...

More information about the Idna-update mailing list