Consensus Call Tranche 8 Summary - Addendum

John C Klensin klensin at jck.com
Wed Oct 22 19:01:10 CEST 2008



--On Wednesday, 22 October, 2008 15:53 +0200 JFC Morfin
<jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> John,
> I agree with most of what you say, but for the reasons I gave
> I consider Martin's suggestion as a necessity. This could be
> implemented in having two classes ccTLD tables. First class
> the current table, second class as the historic/reserved
> characters as considered by the TLD Manager.
> jfc

JFC,

Keep in mind that there are millions of zones (and hence
"registries") in the DNS, with the ccTLDs and gTLDs, together or
separately, representing only a trivial fraction of the whole.

I think it is entirely appropriate for language or script
groups, or countries with particular interest or expertise in a
set of languages or scripts, to compile and publish tables and
recommendations for the use of those languages or scripts in
IDNs.  It is my personal opinion that the IETF should facilitate
those publications, either as RFCs or by working with other
bodies to arrange publications with appropriate visibility and
availability.

But I don't think getting those recommendations tied up with the
protocol (or the IDNA Standard more generally) is wise for a
whole series of reasons, including the ones that I gave.

    john



More information about the Idna-update mailing list