Bundling of Domain Names and DNAME

Erik van der Poel erikv at google.com
Thu Dec 3 18:58:44 CET 2009

Vaggelis, thank you for raising this issue on the namedroppers list.

Namedroppers, I would like to clarify one item below.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Vaggelis Segredakis <segred at ics.forth.gr> wrote:
> Recently, as a member of the discussion of the IDNABIS WG I tried to help
> resolving these issues by explaining them to that group. However that group
> is not free to completely re-design the IDNA protocol to something else but
> rather with small steps to reform it to something with fewer issues.
> Unfortunately, on this process, one of the changes that are implemented lead
> to even more names that have to be bundled together for each registrant.
> This makes it even more significant to break this chain of cost for the end
> user.

The IDNAbis WG drafts have not been published as RFCs yet. Currently,
the drafts make Final Sigma (Unicode U+03C2) PVALID, but this issue is
currently being discussed in the WG.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list