[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Character Variant Deployment at VeriSign

Benny Lipsicas <benny@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Referring to you previous example, this will work only if the registry
> has decided to support language Y beforehand.  It can well be that
> x1 and x2 has been already registered before the decision to support
> language Y has been made.

True.  I wouldn't advise trying to purge existing names that would not
have been admitted under the new policy.  Once they're in, they're in.
But after a zone updates its collection of variant tables to accomodate
more languages, I think it should use all the new tables when deciding
whether to admit new names.

James Seng <jseng@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> i.e. if x1=x2 under X but x1!=x2 under Y, depending if the person
> register in X or Y, he will get either x1 & x2 or just one of them.
> (if I am a native in X, and i registered x1 under X, I *expect* to get
> x2 too.  But if I am a native in Y, and i registered x1 under Y, I
> only *expect* to get x1 and x1 only).

If "I get x2 too" means that x2 appears in the DNS zone at no additional
charge, then I agree, a language tag would be useful.

But even if I don't get x2 (x2 does not appear in the DNS zone), even if
I don't want x2, I think it would still be a good idea for the registry
to prevent anyone else from getting x2, because some users would confuse
x1 and x2.  The blocking is not just for my benefit, but also for

> thats why the JET admin suggest using the language tag as a basis to
> generate variants.

When you say "variants", do you mean only the names that the registrant
has control over, or also the names that the registry blocks?  I see why
language tags are useful for generating the former, but not the latter.

> (of course, you can try to be aggressive, and reserved all possible
> variants but you probably end up with far too many variants then you
> can handle).

You don't necessarily have to store the blocked names.  Checking whether
a new name is blocked might be equivalent to a pattern-match against the
set of already-registered names.