[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New Internet Draft on registering IDNs
At 3:34 PM +0100 3/27/03, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Well, to summary, I find it quite good, much simpler and more
understandable than draft-jseng-idn-admin-02, specially for non-CJK
> A "string" is an ordered set of one or more characters.
This document discusses characters that have equivalent or
near-equivalent characters or strings. The "base character" is the
Shouldn't we use "code point" instead of "character"?
Character is more understandable, and I don't see any place in the
document where a character wouldn't be considered its code point, but
I'm open to changing it.
> If the base character has more than one variant, the variants
are separated by a colon (":", ASCII 0x3A). Strings are given without
any intervening spaces
Isn't it a typo?
> A registry has three options for how to handle the case where
the registration bundle has more than one label. The policy options are:
1) Allocate all labels to the same registrant, making
the zone information identical to that of the input label.
2) Block all labels so they cannot be registered in the
3) Allocate some labels and block some other labels.
This entire scheme does not discuss financial issues.
Correct. It would be unwise to predict how registries will act on
this, especially over time.
For instance, in
Option 1, it will mean that a registrant will get more labels than he
paid for. The registry will not be happy :-)
That's not necessarily true. Registries can decide whether or not to
charge more for names with bundles. Note that in option 2 and 3, the
registry is prevented from making money, so they might charge for
bundles regardless of which option they choose.
In Option 2, OTOH, it means that there is no option for the registrant
to activate some variants.
Do you think this case (all variants are
blocked and some are allocated to the same registrant, if he chooses
so and if he pays, may be a smaller price than a "real" domain) is
covered by Option 3?
That wasn't my intention, but it is an interesting thought. My
intention for option 3, which is what is discussed in the JET
document, is that the registry decides using the table which names
are allocated and which are blocked.
If the variants actually allocated are choosen by the registrant, it
is up to her to minimize confusion.
You are proposing something different: the registry allows the
registrant to pick which names from the bundle go in either category.
It will still have the same problem of option 3, namely typical users
of the DNS won't be able to predict what they should type, but it
sounds "nicer" than option 3.
What do other folks on this list think of that idea?
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium