Status of the mapping proposals?

Elisabeth Blanconil eblanconil at
Fri Apr 24 03:21:58 CEST 2009

As far as I am concerned, and from what I have read so far, I plan to work
this WE on the following assumptions:

1. Charter says:

"The WG will stop work and recommend that a new charter be generated if it
concludes that any of the following are necessary to meet its goals:

--  (i) A change to the "punycode" algorithm or to the ACE approach to
encoding names  in the DNS.

This is not the case.

--  (ii) A change to the ACE prefix from "xn--"

This is not the case. However ASCII case sensitive support may require an
additional prefix.

  (iii) A change to the basic approach taken in the design team documents

--  independence from Unicode version

This is not the case.

-- and elimination of character mapping in the protocol.

This is the pending point. Should mapping be carried:

(a) on an end to end protocol level - rationale? new charter being proposed?
(b) on an app to app application level - guidance to application developper
to be provided through separate document + advised tables ?
(c) a mix of both - rationale? new charter being proposed?

2. Charter also says: "If the public review provided by this Working Group
confirms the basic method outlined in the input documents, it is expected
that the working group will be able to respond with any needed changes and
close in a short period of time."

-> this has not turned true so far (this WG is 6 months late). Question is
therefore why, since charter says "If technical issues arise that indicate a
fundamentally different approach must be taken from the one outlined above,
it is anticipated that this working group would close, and a new one with an
appropriate charter would be considered.".

-> I understand that the only technical issue which is not addressed so far
is case sensitiveness in the ASCII area. I do not see any problem is the
current Charter is respected and this is addressed at app2app level.

3. The charter says : "This work is intended to specify an improved means to
produce and use stable and unambiguous IDN identifiers." This is a point I
wish to study further, because I do not know what "IDN identifiers" are.
Also, I have a difficulty in associating stable and unambigous
identification with domain names which are typically renewed or transfered
to new users on a yearly basis.

Comments, references, help on this point would be appreciated. My intend is
to co-prepare a Draft on the issue.

Elisabeth Blanconil

2009/4/24 Vint Cerf <vint at>

> I am in brussels tomorrow and spain on the weekend but am doing the same
> thing you are (getting resynchronized after all the distractions). stand by.
> v
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Paul Hoffman <phoffman at> wrote:
>> We have gotten sidetracked, and I have lost state. Which
>> reasonably-specific proposals are on the table for WG work on mapping?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Idna-update mailing list