Consensus Call Tranche 8 Results

Simon Josefsson simon at josefsson.org
Wed Nov 5 11:09:34 CET 2008


Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap at NLnetLabs.nl> writes:

>     If there is no compelling analysis to support another approach,
>     I would actually support changing the prefix.  There are some
>     advantages in changing the prefix: it becomes clear which version
>     of the IDNA specifications were used by the encoder.  That
>     information is lost when the same prefix is used by both IDNA2003
>     and IDNA2008.
>
> That is not changing the prefix, it is adding one. That way one
> creates another namespace with a big overlap to an existing one.
> Aren't we confused enough already?

Well, if there are alternatives that are better, I'm for them.  Mark's
proposal to send two DNS queries for the incompatible characters such as
ezset might work, although I've seen people dismiss changing the prefix
because it likely will generate two DNS queries.  Possibly reducing the
number of double-queries limits the impact, although I'm not sure the
dismissals were based on increased traffic or on design principles.

/Simon


More information about the Idna-update mailing list