Re: [Idna-update] [I18nrp] Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-unicode11-05.txt> (IDNA2008 and Unicode 11.0.0) to Informational RFC

Nico Williams <> Fri, 07 December 2018 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6654130E89; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 08:42:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5wKy0nR_EKc0; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 08:42:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0D83130E83; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 08:42:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F33124E4A; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 16:42:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 73282124D1D; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 16:42:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by (trex/5.16.2); Fri, 07 Dec 2018 16:42:15 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Macabre-Glossy: 4a0287e84c980b47_1544200934881_1817130719
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1544200934880:2945621577
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1544200934880
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085B9802E9; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 08:42:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to;; bh=Dl0uDB6x2CJpwe 4LLS1tGsZ0NAE=; b=VHgS/N2eTWApI3jMdbd6vvQbc/clxzd+zfbyLho8uALnDq 9aAceINnk+lOEgWRUN9ppNTOHWm2zju1PqzPjhCKI4PegW9ACE2WbbgusSS1elss HUFgBrOciTAK7fHc6/PizVWJRAykMPAXeoelZwN+HkJb4TvcNOCBIFV2+FQv4=
Received: from localhost (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D3D7B802E2; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 08:42:09 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 10:42:07 -0600
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a36
From: Nico Williams <>
To: John C Klensin <>
Cc: Vint Cerf <>, Patrik =?iso-8859-1?B?RuRsdHN0cvZt?= <>, Asmus Freytag <>,,, Paul Hoffman <>,
Message-ID: <20181207164206.GW15561@localhost>
References: <> <> <055301d48dc8$0ea95120$2bfbf360$> <> <50A496896DE57696A5184DC2@PSB> <> <20181207064147.GT15561@localhost> <> <20181207065006.GV15561@localhost> <ABB604D726E05ECCFB866CE5@PSB>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ABB604D726E05ECCFB866CE5@PSB>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtkedrudefledgkeelucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpffftgfetoffjqffuvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjfgesthdtredttdervdenucfhrhhomheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfeenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhppdhhvghloheplhhotggrlhhhohhsthdpihhnvghtpedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtohepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idna-update] [I18nrp] Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-unicode11-05.txt> (IDNA2008 and Unicode 11.0.0) to Informational RFC
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Internationalized Domain Names in Applications \(IDNA\) implementation and update discussions" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 16:42:24 -0000

On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 02:26:55AM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
> While I tend to agree with Vint -- not because of smartness or
> the lack thereof but because many advertisers have, empirically,
> found it much cheaper to register a lot of domain names than to
> spend time and energy trying to protect trademarks, worrying
> about competitors trying to capture or squat on names, etc.--

But what has that got to do with whether advertisers are smart enough to
use domainnames in advertisements that users can type in?

> this is not a problem we need to solve.  There are many reasons

Good.  Not having to solve it is a big win.

> why we should encourage both registrants and registries to be
> conservative, whether the advice we give about conservatism

Indeed.  I've long been saying that registries should produce policies
appropriate to their domains.

> involves only the global criteria that Patrik believes (and I
> agree) should be primary or we expand that advice to include
> some or all of the considerations Larry, Asmus, and I have been
> advocating.  If the labels that are actually registered (whether
> actively used or not) are a subset of what our conservative
> guidance would suggest, that is great and no harm has been done.

Yes.  Registrants might not agree, but they can always negotiate with
the registries or pick a registry that works for them.

> On the other hand, we've seen names registered, and registered
> as SLDs as well as further down in the tree, that clearly won't
> meet even global criteria for conservatism and responsible
> behavior. much less guidance focused on relevant target
> communities.  Some of those registrations have clearly been the
> result of a shortage of thinking or an excess of cleverness or
> cuteness, not just the result of various forms of malice.  There
> has been a lot of the latter too and we can at least hope that
> more conservative registry policies would stop some of it.   So
> I don't think an argument that we don't need to say something
> (and say it very clearly) about the importance of conservative
> behavior holds up ... and I hope you were not intending to make
> that argument.

I only said that we shouldn't have to address the side-of-the-bus
problem.  You seem to have read into that more than I wrote, or perhaps
you're remembering things I've said before?

Registry policies that apply all the way down the tree would be an
innovation.  I'm not sure how I feel about that yet.  I do recognize the
problems with confusables, but as I've said before, that feels like a
losing battle.