IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC: draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04.txt

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> Wed, 27 April 2011 14:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@shinkuro.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3C00E06EC for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IzAJzciNhDJZ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D37CE0781 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AABCD1ECB41D; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:06:46 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:06:44 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
To: Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>
Message-ID: <20110427140644.GH7329@crankycanuck.ca>
References: <503575932.12389@cnnic.cn> <87mxjc21vi.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <BANLkTik9qxNX-rFL+2mmfxcZa2Hzn4teyw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTik9qxNX-rFL+2mmfxcZa2Hzn4teyw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>, idna-update@alvestrand.no, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC: draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:06:48 -0000

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 09:28:25AM -0400, Vint Cerf wrote:
> algorithms for PVALID, etc. Does anyone know whether U+19DA has
> actually been used in any domain names?

Short of scanning the entire DNS of the entire Internet (presumably
including split-brain cases where the name is not visible in the
public tree), non-evidence of use doesn't show very much.  But it
seems a very unlikely character.

Implicit in the decision in the past about these sorts of cases was
that we'd treat them case by case.  The reason to do that was that
some (potential) incompatibilities are more serious than others.  IF
we were changing the rules around (say) the character "0", I'm quite
sure that the reaction would be different.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email