Registry restrictions (was: Re: Domain names with
leading digits (Re: Determining the basic approach))
John C Klensin
klensin at jck.com
Mon May 5 19:12:38 CEST 2008
--On Monday, 05 May, 2008 18:50 +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
<harald at alvestrand.no> wrote, responding to Paul Hoffman...
>> Of course. But the WG is relying on registry rules and
>> recommendations for many other things that are being changed
>> from IDNA2003. We need to be consistent on this point: can
>> we remove things from the IDNA protocol and have them be
>> enforced by registries, or can't we?
> Let's list them and do them case-by-case (in another thread,
Just to clarify the model that was used to shape the existing
documents, the assumptions are:
* There will be things that cannot be done strictly in
the protocol that are, nonetheless, important. We hope
that they can be handled by registry restrictions and
believe that registry restrictions (heavyweight or
lightweight and independent of the methods used) are an
important part of the picture, not just desirable.
* There will be things that cannot be done strictly by
registries that are, nonetheless, important. We hope
that they can be handled by protocol provisions (at
registration time, lookup time, or both) and believe
that such protocol provisions are an important part of
the picture, not just desirable.
* So, even though we are not, in general, prepared to
tell registries what provisions and restrictions they
should (or must) apply, we believe that some things are
better done by registries than by protocol.
* We also believe that there are some things that
dangerous or treacherous enough, or that raise long-term
issues that are potentially problematic enough, that
they have to be checked in the protocol, not just left
to registration-time activity. The most important
example of this involves characters that are invisible
out of context, notable the joiners, but we believe that
special measures for unassigned and disallowed
characters are also in order.
That obviously leaves three sets of questions for the WG:
(1) Is that model reasonable?
(2) What very specific things should be pushed off to the
registries (remembering that "registry" equals "any zone in the
DNS") and which ones left in the protocol (at registration time,
lookup time, or both)?
(3) For any given thing we try to push off to the registry, are
we offering advice or do we think we have some leverage on
telling registries what they "MUST" do?
More information about the Idna-update