WG Review: Internationalized Domain Name (idn)

Lisa Dusseault lisa at osafoundation.org
Wed Mar 5 02:05:10 CET 2008

Hi Ted,

I'm responding to part of this and excerpting.
> There is no liaison information given; is the WG expected to maintain
> a liaison to the Unicode Consortium or is the IETF liaison expected to
> take on any new work as a result of this?  (Obviously, there is a  
> serious
> difference between work we can do based on already published  or
> otherwise agreed specifications and work which requires coordination).

Unicode experts have been participating in the work already, so this  
is even closer cooperation than having a liaison.  If there turns out  
to be a need for a liaison, can IAB/liaisons/ADs/chairs do lazy  
evaluation then on whether the IETF liaison can/will handle it or if  
the WG needs to create one?

>> Additional goals:
>> - Separate requirements for valid IDNs at registration time,
>> vs. at resolution time
> I think you need to define what "resolution time" means here.
> For better or worse, IDNs now appear in authority sections of
> URIs and not all of those are resolved at all.  If what you mean
> is "Separate requirements for valid IDNs in registration contexts,
> in identifiers, and in relation to the wire format of DNS", then I
> think  you need three categories.

That's quite possible.  Is that level of detail required in the  
charter?  I don't think there's consensus pre-WG about how to make  
requirements for IDNs in identifiers, but this is something a WG  
could reasonably tackle within the context of this charter -- in fact  
it's something that would be hard to decide how to approach before  
having a WG.

>> The WG will work to ensure practical stability of the validity
>> algorithms for IDNs (whether based on character properties or
>> inclusion/exclusion lists).
> This is ambiguous.  If this is meant to say that the WG can decide
> after starting its work that it must abandon the character properties
> design direction and go to inclusion/exclusion lists, then the  
> statement
> above giving design direction needs to be changed.  If this is meant
> to say "backwards compatibility with X" what X is is not clear here.

I think you're suggesting removing the parenthetical from the charter  
sentence.  Question for others: does that lose something important?   
If so how can that be made compatible with the design direction  that  
the charter suggests the WG needs to verify?


More information about the Idna-update mailing list