Changing DISALLOWED (was Re: Reserved general punctuation)

JFC Morfin jefsey at
Fri May 2 12:31:06 CEST 2008

At 11:37 02/05/2008, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>Yes, we have talked about "an expert group" and such things, and 
>long  term yes I absolutely think we will have such a process.
>BUT, until then, the only reliable review process we have for 
>changes  is by issuing a new RFC.

An RFC will only create a new version. We are talking of the real 
life DNS (supposedly IDNA layer is to encapsulate the DNS as far as 
the majority of the DNS users is concerned). There is no reason for 
IDNA updates to deploy faster than DNS updates, moreover than the 
independent cpu population will probably dramatically grow. The key 
issue is therefore to include in the IDNA concept an automatic update 
logic, probably through RRs read by an IDNA associated logic?

I note that the resolution of the same need for langtags has been 
disregarded, the answer being that the update strategy would be the 
same as for Unicode. This was acceptable as long as langtags are 
mostly used by some large Unicode aware systems. It is less 
accepptable for something directly affecting the way billions of 
people use the DNS.

I have a question which may be stupid, but I am not sure about the 
answer. How will someone with an IDNA 2003 conformant browser 
interact with an IDNA 2008 conformant IDN and vice-versa?

More information about the Idna-update mailing list