Changing the xn-- prefix
vint at google.com
Tue Mar 25 13:04:21 CET 2008
James, et al,
May I suggest that we neither rule out nor explicitly suggest that
there is need for a prefix change in the charter.
If the working group comes to the conclusion that it cannot endorse
the basic IDNA200X proposal and thinks that a new prefix is needed it
will report that back to the IETF.
To be honest, I hope that it will not come to that or, if it does, I
hope that we can implement IDNA200X as an improvement over IDNA2003
and that a prefix change proposal morphs into a serious "above the
DNS" exploration that has been set aside in the past for good reasons
but which might need to be resurrected as a serious piece of research.
On Mar 25, 2008, at 7:52 AM, James Seng wrote:
> I remember xn-- was selected after exhaustive data mining on .COM zone
> file back then and in the process, we found a few others that could be
> use. "xn" basically was then pick "randomly".
> I agree that there are complexity to change xn at this moment.
> However, I am not totally against changing the prefix if the following
> conditions are fulfill
> a) there is a STRONG technical reason that a new prefix is needed
> b) there must be backward compatibility with all existing IDN labels
> with xn prefix.
> For example, and I am not making any proposal, this is really just
> merely an example, that I would consider a change of prefix if it we
> agreed the best way to identify IDNA vs IDNA200X labels is via the
> prefix (and I do not necessary agree at this moment) and that no
> IDNA200X labels with a new prefix can be de-constructed to an xn--
> IDNA label, ie the round-trip conversion between IDN and ACE labels
> must always be consistent.
> Much of the above are already captured somehow in Section 9.3 of the
> issue document.
> Perhaps lets not to mention the prefix change is allowed or disallowed
> in the charter and let the working group sort it out.
> -James Seng
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 2:29 PM, YAO Jiankang <yaojk at cnnic.cn> wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Patrik Fältström" <patrik at frobbit.se>
>> To: "Shawn Steele" <Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com>
>> Cc: <idna-update at alvestrand.no>; "John C Klensin"
>> <klensin at jck.com>; "Mark Davis" <mark.davis at icu-project.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 10:23 AM
>> Subject: Re: Changing the xn-- prefix
>>> On 25 mar 2008, at 00.13, Shawn Steele wrote:
>>>> I reread your original mail, and in particular I don't want to get
>>>> bogged down in the debate of details while trying to set the
>>>> guidelines, but I'd like to try for "A prefix change MUST be
>>>> avoided" (removing the condition). If that's going to cause too
>>>> much randomization, then I'd back down, but the repercussions of
>>>> changing the prefix are huge.
>>> I am personally in favor of text in the charter that say "The prefix
>>> xn-- MUST NOT be changed." where MUST NOT is defined according to
>>> IETF definition in RFC 2119 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt).
>>> This put a constrain on the changes the wg is allowed to do to
>>> IDNA200X (not large so that the prefix has to change) -- at least
>>> without rechartering.
>>> Idna-update mailing list
>>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update