[art] Re: [SPICE] Re: Re: [Last-Call] Re: Re: Re: draft-ietf-spice-glue-id-04 ietf last call Artart review

[Arnt Gulbrandsen <[e-mail]>]

Rohan Mahy <[e-mail]> writes:

> I think there are three questions that follow from this 
> discussion: - do we want national/regional identifier systems to 
> be registered?

Indeed.
 
> - do we want to allow or encourage internationalized domain 
> names for the names of any non-ASCII Authority Identifiers? If 
> so, punycode is a logical way to represent them.

I would _guess_ that a string derived from a registered company 
name is more likely. Less fleeting, less easily reregistered.

BTW, I don't think John meant to suggest domain names. Rather, he 
told the story due to the possible parallels. Some countries 
introduced non-ASCII domain names without asking the IETF for 
permission, which led to IETF defining a common way to do 
non-ASCII domain names.

> - is it the responsibility of the GLUE spec to define how 
> non-ASCII characters (if any) are represented in the rest of the 
> URN (after the Authority Identifier and colon), or should that 
> be left to the individual registrations?

And that's where the IDN story has a parallel.

I'd add a fourth: is ASCII really necessary, or is it better to 
restrict it to, say A-Z0-9 or just 0-9. AFAICT the initial 
registrations don't need more than 0-9, or what have I missed?

So the arguments to accept code points like 0x20, 0x22, 0x25, 0x3b 
seem weak to my untutored eyes. Of course this:that:";drop table 
users is great fun.

Arnt