Katakana Middle Dot again (Was: tables-06b.txt: A.5, A.6, A.9)
ajs at shinkuro.com
Sat Aug 8 05:36:53 CEST 2009
I don't have time to reply properly right now, let alone from a decent
MUA, so apologies in advance. John is quite right: there is _in
principle_ no way to know what "domain" a given label is "in", because
at least of cname and dname. Sorry, but the DNS just does not work as
you seem to assume.
ajs at shinkuro.com
On 2009-08-07, at 17:38, Elisabeth Blanconil <eblanconil at gmail.com>
> Dear John,
> I do not understand some of your remarks.
> 2009/8/7 John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com>:
>> --On Friday, August 07, 2009 22:13 +0200 Elisabeth Blanconil
>> Except that a "TLD table inheritance system" is impossible in a
>> DNS in which it is not, in the general case, possible to tell
>> which TLD a label is actually part of and in which a given node
>> can be effectively a subtree of multiple trees.
> I am afraid "impossible" only means that some R&D is to be carried.
> Hence my allusion to RFC 3869.
>>> Was it not at a time a proposition by John Klensin?
> I refered to http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-klensin-idn-tld-00.txt
> Sorry, if I did not understand the underlying idea. If there are
> tables to translate TLDs, it means that TLDs are identified.
>>> Ooops! This would have been a problem for "internationalized"
>>> money making gTLDs ICANN wants to sell.
>> No, actually, some of the "Rich people" who want those domains
>> would undoubtedly like the freedom to do whatever they like
>> even to use character coding systems other than Unicode. So you
>> need a different conspiracy theory and/or source of innuendo.
> I am afraid you misuderstand the commercial point here. Coca-Cola does
> not want to fool around with ".coke". They want something stable and
> unique. TM protection is not in freedom, but in enforced rules. The
> same for .com.
> Freedom is great for IDN TLDs, not for global TLDs.
>> 3869 doesn't discuss "development priority". It discusses
>> relatively long-term research priorities.
> It intends to suggest that a broad range of ongoing research is
> needed, and to propose some candidate topics. IDNA is not one however
> new namespaces are considered.
>> If you would like to
>> put IDNs into that category and accept the five or ten year wait
>> it would imply, I'm sure I can find people who would be
>> sympathetic to that idea. But I'm not one of them and I suspect
>> that few participants in the WG are either.
> IDNs were introduced on the Internet in 1998.
>>> IMHO the
>>> real issue is to make sure in the final wording that Class,
>>> TLD, presentation, or Zone related character restrictions or
>>> exceptions can be documented without contradicting the
>>> proposed text - in order to avoid unnecessary conflicts.
>> I wish I had a better idea what you are talking about and
>> whether it was relevant to the WG.
> I only mean that zone managers will have to deal with the final texts.
> And that we have to make sure no one can use these texts to insert
> hidden MUSTs, for example in the way to implement them or to contract
> their use.
> Elisabeth Blanconil
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update