Proposal for the charter

Patrik Fältström patrik at
Sat Mar 15 14:03:39 CET 2008

I also disagree with this proposed change.

I also want to point out that the registries will have a fundamental  
role in the deployment of IDNs as their policies to a large degree  
will be where further restrictions on ability to register domain names  
in the zones the registries manage can be policed. On lower levels in  
the dns hierarchy, people will be able to register whatever codepoints  
they want (according to the IDNA200x standard -- and in some cases  
most certainly with violations because people try to use the  
violations as an attack vector to services, just like we see such  
violations today).


On 14 mar 2008, at 17.07, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> 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?)
>                      Harald
> --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
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at

More information about the Idna-update mailing list