AW: Formal submission of our documents to AD

Georg Ochsner g.ochsner at
Tue Oct 6 16:40:17 CEST 2009

I agree with Martin below! Further I don't think that registries that would not bundle could implicitly be considered as "untrusted". (BTW There are other alternatives for registries just like grandfathering.) As Martin said, especially in the future - the more IDNA2008 spreads - there will be many cases where the ss / ß versions of a domain name may point to different websites without any problems at all - one could rather say it's even an advantage... And to fight phishing and/or typos at this point is in my eyes neither necessary nor efficient.

Best regards

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: idna-update-bounces at [mailto:idna-update-bounces at] Im Auftrag von "Martin J. Dürst"
Gesendet: Montag, 5. Oktober 2009 13:01
An: Mark Davis ☕
Cc: Vint Cerf; Harald Alvestrand; idna-update at
Betreff: Re: Formal submission of our documents to AD


Also, in Step 3, you split, which means that in Step 5, you have several 
strings, but you only return one string ?!

As for mapping tables, what seems to happen is that e.g. a "ß" is mapped 
to "ss" for lookup, but not for display. This seems to be really a bad 
combination: You pretend that the browser (or whatever) distinguishes 
between "ss" and "ß", but redirect to "ss". From a point of view of a 
search engine, that may be the right thing to do, but assuming that .de 
allows separate registrations in those cases where there is a real 
difference between "ss" and "ß", which I hope they will, the above will 
be the worst of both worlds. If my name is Straßen, and I own 
straß, and somebody else owns because his/her name is, then we both want to be able to make sure people get to the 
right place, at least once IDNA2008 is deployed.

More information about the Idna-update mailing list