Proposal for the charter

Harald Tveit Alvestrand harald at
Fri Mar 14 22:07:20 CET 2008

I disagree with that change.

"Registration time" and "lookup time" are easily understood terms with lots 
of common usage; the terms "stored strings" and "queries" take more 
explanation to relate to the DNS context (do you consider a domain name in 
the HTML of a Web page to be a "stored string" or not? Why not, and how 
much time do you want to spend to explain what you mean?)


--On Wednesday, March 12, 2008 19:26:29 +0100 "Marcos Sanz/Denic" 
<sanz at> wrote:

> All,
> Repeating here what I said at the BOF regarding the following sentence in
> the charter:
> "Separate requirements for valid IDNs at registration time, vs. at
> resolution time".
> 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). The  proposed substitution could be
> "To take into account the different nature of 'stored strings' vs
> 'queries' (cf RFC 3454) and leverage on them to pursue interoperability
> with IDNA2003"
> Best regards
> Marcos
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at

More information about the Idna-update mailing list