Re: [DNSOP] draft-yao-dnsop-idntld-implementation-01.txt

Alireza Saleh <saleh@nic.ir> Fri, 06 November 2009 19:27 UTC

Return-Path: <saleh@nic.ir>
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F8E3A697D for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:27:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zPKPaXxGYztR for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:27:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.linux.ir (relay.linux.ir [193.189.122.196]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 227993A62C1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:27:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4AF478A5.4050202@nic.ir>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:57:33 +0330
From: Alireza Saleh <saleh@nic.ir>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <20091106180340.GS17456@shinkuro.com> <C719A8BF.17EA6%kim.davies@icann.org> <20091106182434.GW17456@shinkuro.com>
In-Reply-To: <20091106182434.GW17456@shinkuro.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-yao-dnsop-idntld-implementation-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:27:13 -0000

Variants can exist in registered IDN label no matter of where this label 
going to be used, TLD, SLD or other levels. I'm not trying to push 
having or not having variants in the root , I  would like to say that  
registries thinking about supporting variants and some currently do 
variant registration. what happen if their variant policy contains their 
proposed TLD label. " Think that in some cases there is no visual way to 
tell to variant labels apart".
So in that situation,  the variant issue  needs to be addressed 
somewhere else or should be completely forgotten.  If it is going to be 
supported, then this may happen at application level to override the 
decision which currently being made by DNS with replacing the variant 
TLD with the resolvable one.

I think that  ICANN may insert variants in the root if they do that 
according to a clear contract with the registry.

- Alireza


Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 10:19:43AM -0800, Kim Davies wrote:
>
>   
>> To be clear, ICANN has not made a decision to insert variants in the root,
>> precisely because there are implications that haven't yet been resolved.
>>     
>
> Oh, that's good news.  Thanks for correcting my mistake.  The policy
> that's actually been adopted seems to me to be an excellent one, and
> I'm delighted to be set right.  My apologies for maligning the
> decision incorrectly.
>
> Best,
>
> A
>
>