Gervase Markham gerv at
Wed Mar 12 13:32:55 CET 2008

JFC Morfin wrote:
> Gervase,
> Thank you for this input. This is certainly the priviledge of Firefox to 
> have its own policy. HOWEVER,
> 1) it should be published to ccTLDs.

The policy is published:
Any lack of detail is due to a desire to have maximum flexibility to 
incorporate the requirements and constraints of different registries, 
not a desire to be vague.

> 2) it should be published to users.

Well, it's on the website. But if you mean it should be brought to the 
attention of users, I strongly disagree.

> 3) the way it is documented and organised is discriminatory and falls 
> under WIPO TBT rules as some registrants are disfavored while they do 
> respect the RFCs.

You'll have to expand "TBT" for me. But I somehow doubt that the WIPO is 
going to start infering with Firefox's security decisions.

> 4) the management of this feature should be far more flexible and off by 
> default.

Again, I entirely disagree. Insecure-by-default and highly-configurable 
are two anti-goals for Firefox.

> 5) This does not seem to support IDNccTLD and the Fast T/Crack ICANN 
> project ?

By IDNccTLD, do you mean ccTLDs using IDN? We support the test URLs in 
Firefox 3 betas.

I'm afraid I've never heard of the "Fast T/Crack ICANN" project.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list