Re: [apps-discuss] CONTEXTJ in TLD DNS-Labels (draft-liman-tld-names-05)

Paul Hoffman <> Tue, 19 July 2011 19:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A400821F87A4 for <>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.488
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.488 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.189, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fi4PwO+3cGf6 for <>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D66A421F8786 for <>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6JJn37d038789 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:49:03 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Paul Hoffman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:49:15 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <B464B2C6607E04FD0572AA74@> <> <> <> <>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: apps-discuss <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] CONTEXTJ in TLD DNS-Labels (draft-liman-tld-names-05)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 19:49:20 -0000

On Jul 19, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:

> On 19 jul 2011, at 16.55, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> So the burden of convincing the community is on the ones that do think a character like ZWNJ is to be allowed or not that the need for the character is greater than the potential harm in _any_ context it might be used in.
>> I am going to push back here, hard. The draft is about names used in exactly one zone, and that zone has exactly one administrator. Your statement about "_any_ context" is inappropriate for this draft.
> We just misunderstand each other.
> Yes, this is about only this zone, so what I meant with "_any_ context" was still "within this single, very special zone".
> So not really "_any_".

Ah, good.

> But, as John wrote, together with any character, regardless of language, etc...that was what I intended to mean by "_any_ context".
> Still in THIS zone, the root zone.

We have already seen the perceived need for these characters in the root zone, and we have not seen any statement of how they can cause harm *in the root zone*. "Phishing" in the root zone, given the horrendous weight of the process for getting new names put in the root zone, is not a threat. Which others do you believe that need to be weighed against the value of the characters?

--Paul Hoffman