Eszett (Sharp-S) again (was: Re: AW: Oustanding issues trac

John C Klensin klensin at
Wed May 28 22:01:16 CEST 2008

--On Wednesday, 28 May, 2008 16:34 +0200 JFC Morfin
<jefsey at> wrote:

> At 16:03 28/05/2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> (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 doubt.)
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64The 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.
> Then, in refering to my answer to John on the document
> organisation, I would suggest that:
> - this could be introduced in the first "for information"
> document [in order to be clearly documented as out of scope].
> - not alluded to in the standard track protocol document.
> - your cons and pros could either be in the first document, or
> in the third "practical" document (I suggested it to be a BCP,
> for easy updates).

Unfortunately Eszett is either to be treated as an independent
character (presumably PROTOCOL_VALID) or not (DISALLOWED).
While it could be PROTOCOL_VALID and a registry could still
decide not to permit it, it ultimately either has to permitted
or not -- there is no option for "maybe" or "individual
implementations decide"


More information about the Idna-update mailing list