Q1 is mapping on lookup permanent or transitional?

Vint Cerf vint at google.com
Sat Apr 4 12:57:05 CEST 2009

we are NOT going to discuss ML-DNS or JFC proposals in this mailing  

If you persist in posting on these topics I will have to declare your  
postings off topic and have your posting privileges removed.

vint cerf

Vint Cerf
1818 Library Street, Suite 400
Reston, VA 20190
vint at google.com

On Apr 4, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Rémy Renardin wrote:

> 2009/4/4 John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com>
> --On Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:26 -0700 Lisa Dusseault
> <lisa.dusseault at gmail.com> wrote:
> While I do not
> see any possibility of addressing the issues in the IDN context
> -- even if only because a better solution for one particular
> language would foul things up for others using the same script--
> the issues that Jefsey and his colleagues have raised about
> appropriate case matching for French are actually good examples
> of this: if users has learned that most mappings behave in a
> reasonable and predictable way, they will expects all
> mapping/matching operations to work the way they would
> predict... and be confused or irritated when they do not.
> John,
> let me summarize our "French" position as our Chair puts it.  
> Actually users expect IDNA2008 as a revision of IDNA2003 to work  
> better for them than IDNA2003. In the case of the French script it  
> does not. However, the support of Latin majuscules is an accepted  
> Unicode approximation (to use upper-cases instead and non-user- 
> decided casefolding) which conflicts with ASCII DNs case insensivity  
> in the IDNA specifc case. This is why a negotiation is to occur some  
> way, to decide if Roman uppercases are ASCII or Latin.
> - If such a fundamental conflict was not noticed by this WG, while  
> French is one of their nearest natural language, was disregarded by  
> its members but you (in spite of us documenting it on-line), and  
> banned by the Chair, only relevant language authorities can decide  
> of them (like ASIWG, is currently doing for LAS).
> - this negociation mecanism belongs to the missing presentation  
> layer. The double look-up is an attempt to such a negociation. But  
> its algorithm is wrong: if Ecole.fr and ecole.fr are registered  
> which one will be picked for "http://ecole.fr"? Another solution  
> could be the class usage you did propose. Another is the virtual  
> classes JFC proposes with the "x.--".
> Now, the Chair does not want this WG (1) to dicuss interoperabilty  
> with our ML-DNS exploration (2) nor listen to users, we found that  
> the only way to proceed is a complete review of the DN understanding  
> which protects the DNS from confusion in usage and in management and  
> makes it fully able to support the semantic addressing space as we  
> approach it.
> Rémy Renardin
> ----------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090404/53bd1610/attachment.htm 

More information about the Idna-update mailing list