Q1 is mapping on lookup permanent or transitional?

Mark Davis mark at macchiato.com
Wed Apr 1 02:05:40 CEST 2009

Our meeting consensus was to forbid mapping on registration, require on
lookup, and discourage stored M-Labels.

For unmappable disallowed characters, I think it works fine to have a
transition period. But for lookup mapping I don't see any plausible way for
a transition period to end. So I think we end up having a permanent,
required lookup mapping.


On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 09:05, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:

> Q1: Should the proposed mapping on lookup in a revised IDNA2008
> protocol specification be a permanent feature of the protocol or
> should it have a finite lifetime? Should it be required or optional?
> This question is intended to be independent of the actual mapping that
> is done. If the question cannot be answered without having specific
> mapping in mind, we should recompose the question accordingly.
> Vint Cerf
> Google
> 1818 Library Street, Suite 400
> Reston, VA 20190
> 202-370-5637
> vint at google.com
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090331/032aa562/attachment.htm 

More information about the Idna-update mailing list