Re: Mississippi Hißes

Patrik Fältström patrik at
Sun Dec 13 22:04:28 CET 2009

On 13 dec 2009, at 21.43, John C Klensin wrote:

> But we do have worked examples of its having been done, and done
> at fairly large scale, so this is really another example of why
> the registries should (and will, IMO) make their own decisions
> and of why the IETF would be overreaching by trying to create a
> "one size fits all" policy that tells registries what to do
> independent of local considerations and decisions.


One example why this might be important is that even if registries agree that "two registrations of ß and ss can be allowed if the registrations are made by THE SAME registrants", different registries might have different mechanisms of deciding how to evaluate whether two registrants are THE SAME.

It must be up to the registry.

My point in commenting on what Alexander wrote was that just because (which I think is for example the case in .SE) it is extremely hard to synchronize bundled domains _after_ registration (i.e. keep the bundle a bundle), it is not so hard to take care of the bundling at time of registration.

I.e. even if one or two or fifteen things might be hard, maybe one or three are possible (and make the transition MUCH better for the end user).


More information about the Idna-update mailing list