[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New Internet Draft on registering IDNs
At 2:40 PM -0300 3/27/03, vinton g. cerf wrote:
the alternative of allowing the registrant to adjust the subset that
is registered from the "bundle" has the nice property that it is the
registrant's choice (and responsibility) for the resulting ease of
use or lack thereof.
Indeed. Novice registrants could start with "let me handle the most
likely name and block the rest", and then migrate to fuller use when
they are ready. Within a few years, when registrant-level bundle
handlers are common, users will probably mostly go towards
In thinking about this more, there are some downsides as well:
- Much more of a hassle for the registry because now they have to
manage the individual elements of the bundle manually instead of
- Much less predictable to DNS users of the zone
I am not sure what to say about the economic position to be taken
and perhaps this could be best left to the TLD operator.
Right. RFCs usually don't talk about economics.
Excessive "greed" if you will pardon the use of the word, might
prove to be a poor business choice, so there might be some balance
between a single price regardless of the size of the selected bundle
subset and a price equal to registering N distinct SLDs.
I think any registry reading this document (or the JET document, or
others) will be able to quickly figure out the costs associated with
the work they are taking on. We don't need to list it for them any
more than BGP documents talk about the financial aspects of routing
Intuition is hard to rely on here since the properties of different
languages and chosen rules for "equivalence" will lead to quite a
variety of different cases, I would think.
Which is exactly the reason this document is more generic than the
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium