Proposal for the charter

Martin Duerst duerst at
Thu Mar 13 05:01:22 CET 2008

+1 for the change. Not everybody knows all these RFCs,
and so I think Marcos' wording is less susceptive for

Regards,   Martin.

At 07:50 08/03/13, Marcos Sanz/Denic wrote:
>> > My suggestion is to change the wording because it is too
>> > "registration  centric": consider that the act of registration
>> > generally only occurs at  the second or third level, towards a
>> > domain name registry. However, we  want a solution applicable
>> > to all levels of the DNS tree, where  delegations naturally
>> > occur without any registration. For the matter at  stake, I
>> > like the wording from RFC 3454, which makes a distinction
>> > between  "stored strings" (which encompasses registered
>> > domains, but then also  other kinds of storage like e.g.
>> > entries in a certificate) and "queries"  (volatile existences
>> > to be matched against stored identifiers).
>> However, please note that the term "registry" is
>> introduced in RFC 1591 as applying to any entity that maintains
>> a zone file. 
>Not my reading of 1591. This RFC is only TLD-related.
>> I don't really care about this change one way or the other,
>> I don't think this change is substantive.
>Then let's make the change, i.e., if this is fine with Stephane, who 
>originally brought up the issue this morning.
>If everyone were pleased so easily... :-)
>Best regards,
>Idna-update mailing list
>Idna-update at

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#       mailto:duerst at     

More information about the Idna-update mailing list