Another thoughts on TRANSITIONAL

[Vint Cerf]

i think alireza has the right idea here. It should be possible to plan  
registrations
under IDNA2008 rules on a registry by registry basis (I mean registry  
in its
most general sense, not just TLD) and to do them in such a way that  
takes
into account awareness that IDNA2003 and IDNA2008 compliant software
will persist, in parallel, for a considerable time. In some ways, this  
is the same
kind of problem that IPv4 and IPv6 pose from the deployment point of  
view.

v


On Dec 6, 2009, at 2:16 AM, Alireza Saleh wrote:

> I think TLD operators can help to solve this problem. In current
> situation, we should accept that some incompatibilities may occur in
> lower level of labels which are not under the control of the TLD
> operators. I think the only way to do the transition is at the time  
> that
> registries start registering domains under the IDNA2008 regulations.
>
> Registries should take an appropriate sunrise system before  
> introducing
> domain-registration under INDA2008. For example,
> 1) Stop registering IDN names or check IDNA2003 version of each
> registration against their database and if it exists , do not allow  
> that
> registration
> 2) Contact current label owners who have domain names including
> MAYBE-CANDIDATE characters and ask them whether they want INDA2008
> variant of that or not
> 3) Begin normal registration after this Sunrise-Transitional period  
> passed
>
> This may require  close co-operation between ICANN and IETF to  
> publish a
> guideline for that transition including policy and technical  
> solutions.
> It may also require revisiting the EPP protocol or add an extension to
> that.
>
> - Alireza
>
>
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 10:55:37AM +0330, Alireza Saleh wrote:
>>
>>> I don't understand what the protocol is trying to solve. If this  
>>> is the
>>>
>>
>> The idea behind what I suggested is just that a zone operator can say
>> what their policy is, and clients can learn that, in a generalized  
>> (or
>> generalizable) way.  I fully admit it's a giant and expensive means  
>> to
>> the end, but it's the only way I know of signalling between the end
>> points in this otherwise mostly-stateless interaction.
>>
>>
>>> a domain-name and not only TLDs or SLDs
>>> that are directly under the control of zone operators.
>>>
>>
>> Surely every single existing RNAME in the DNS is directly under the
>> control of some zone operator?
>>
>> A
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update