is IDNA the ML-DNS we wait for ?

James Seng james at
Sat May 17 03:38:54 CEST 2008

I believe this working group is chartered very narrowly and specific
related to the work done by the previous work in IDN-WG and later work
by John on IDNA2003. So while I do not question the legitimacy of your
question, this working group may not be the right forum for having
those discussion as it is out of scope.

But quickly:

(1) is out of scope even for IETF. (2) is something under discussion
so no answer. (3) is out of scope (ask Unicode) (4) is answered in the
chartered (5) cannot be answered since there is no "ML-DNS" RFC to
base it against (6) is out of scope - refer to original IDN-WG (7) is
out of scope for IETF (8) is out of scope (ask Unicode) and (9) is out
of scope (ask ICANN)

-James Seng

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:29 AM, jefsey <jefsey at> wrote:
> Dear Vint,
> As I explained it, prior to sending this mail, I circulated its draft to
> many people round the world and took their remarks into consideration,
> specially @large members who like those of france at large and Multilinc
> translate "@large" as "an Internet co-owner", and MAAYA Members.
> The IDNA issue is a key priority for the continuation of the IETF technology
> as the network technology of the world digital ecosystem (WDE). If the IETF
> cannot match the world's expectations in that area it must say so now, so
> others can consider alternative solutions before we see different
>  uncoordinated local solutions developed and deployed.
>  >At 22:37 09/05/2008, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>  >What matters, I think, is what contemporary communities *are* using or
> might reasonably be inferred to want to use if available, for domain
> names.
> Maybe, what really matters are:
> (1) the political world consensus for a multilingual Internet for a people
> centered multilingual society of information,
> (2) the universal resentment at being told what one is supposed to want.
>  People accept being told by others as to what they can only do, if they
> understand exactly why.
> The world expects a Multilingual DNS that works for every language and every
> script the way the DNS works for English and ASCII. Let us call this the
> ML-DNS specification. It is very simple, terse, and clear.
> Question (A): does this IETF WG-IDNABIS seek to document an IDNA based
> ML-DNS in order to be ready for testing by Dec. 2008 (Y/N)?
> Question (B): If A is "N",  what are the clearly defined and committed
> detailed specifications of the Nov. 2008 IETF deliverable?
> Among the points to be clarified in these specifications are:
> 1- will it be mainly focussed towards Mobiles, Browsers, Applications, or
> the three of them?
> 2- will it be phishing proof at every DN level?
> 3- which scripts or charset and languages will be supported? or will it be
> transparent to scripts choices?
> 4- will it be IDN2003 compatible?
> 5- will it strive to be future ML-DNS interoperable?
> 6- why was the IDNA option chosen as the best way to support ML-DNS vs.
> other possibilities?
> 7- will Microsoft, Google, and Firefox fully and identically support it?
> Will they also permit the support of any other ML-DNS proposition?
> 8 - will it support easily additional symbols such as logos?
> 9 - will it stay ISO 3166 conformant?
> Thank you for your committed answer.
> jfc
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at

More information about the Idna-update mailing list