Changing DISALLOWED (was Re: Reserved general punctuation)

John C Klensin klensin at
Thu May 1 18:47:51 CEST 2008

--On Thursday, 01 May, 2008 12:38 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
<ajs at> wrote:

>> 3. We say that characters can only be removed from DISALLOWED
>> by the committee/mechanism that controls CONTEXT/exceptions,
>> and only in extremis.
> as I think John says (or at least implies) elsewhere, until we
> see a proposal for what this mechanism is, it's very hard to
> evaluate how desirable this answer is.  
> I guess this means I prefer 2, which in my view is practically
> equivalent to 1.

Since I probably wasn't clear about my conclusion, let me fix
that.  I think the only plausible answer _right now_ is (2).
That is with the understanding that

(i) like you, I don't see much distinction in practice between
(2) and (1) other than what expectations we set

(ii) I don't think it is likely that we can get consensus,
really soon, on an acceptable mechanism for (3).  If, after we
get some experience and if these cases turn out to be more
common than anyone seems to expect, we can define such a
process, it would make a perfectly good justification for a new

Put differently, I can see us moving to (3) as part of one of
the updating RFCs under (2), but not now.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list