Eszett (Sharp-S) again (was: Re: AW: Oustanding issues tracking)
vint at google.com
Wed May 28 16:08:53 CEST 2008
The charter of the wg is to produce the protocol rules essentially and to outline what may have to be the responsibility of registries or registrars for any further restrictions.
----- Original Message -----
From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no <idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no>
To: idna-update at alvestrand.no <idna-update at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Wed May 28 07:03:59 2008
Subject: Re: Eszett (Sharp-S) again (was: Re: AW: Oustanding issues tracking)
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:40:14AM +0200, JFC Morfin wrote:
> How would this translate for user (non-DE) registration management? Should
> not one of these mechanisms to be standardised in order to maintain some
> design, usage, management consistency throughout the DNS usage? Or is there
> a consensus they are outside of the WG scope and to be addressed by users?
It is absolutely an implementer's problem, and outside the WG scope.
If I were still a TLD registry operator, I would resist very strongly
anything that limited my options on how to address these sorts of
problems. Given that I still administer some smallish zones, I _also_
resist any specification of exactly how this must be done.
(This is not the same thing as an informational saying, "Here are some
ways, and the advantages and disadvantages of each." I can imagine
such a document, although whether it would be on-charter for this WG I
ajs at commandprompt.com
+1 503 667 4564 x104
Idna-update mailing list
Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update