Additional thoughts on TRANSITIONAL ( Which level of label )

Alireza Saleh saleh at
Sat Dec 5 08:25:37 CET 2009

I don't understand what the protocol is trying to solve. If this is the 
RFC about the policies that zone-operators should think of (like 
mapping) then I think we can revise all the documents with this new 
approach  because I suppose that IDNAbis is a working-group to fix 
issues across all labels within a domain-name and not only TLDs or SLDs 
that are directly under the control of zone operators.

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On 2009-12-04, at 17:41, Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault at>  
> wrote:
>>  TRANSITIONAL character in the domain.
>> I agree that in some models, an error is better than going to an  
>> indeterminate destination.  But only in some models.  To the user,  
>> upgrading their browser and suddenly having links with ß in domains  
>> fail where it succeeded the day before, does not seem like a real up 
>> grade.
> This is precisely the problem my admittedly kludgey suggestion is  
> supposed to solve. If the registry (zone operator) has a policy to map  
> as desired, then the upgrade works as hoped anyway. We could even  
> include a mechanism to say "never had any idna2003" so that people who  
> have waited for something better get the new benefits as soon as new  
> browsers are deployed. (But the idea is still a pig, & I'm not  
> defending it hard.)
> A

More information about the Idna-update mailing list