The "no consecutive hyphens" prohibition (was: Re: Domain names with leading digits (Re: Determining the basic approach))
John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com> Mon, 05 May 2008 17:26 UTC
Return-Path: <klensin@jck.com>
X-Original-To: idna-update@alvestrand.no
Delivered-To: idna-update@alvestrand.no
Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A66D3259740; Mon, 5 May 2008 19:26:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06419-03; Mon, 5 May 2008 19:26:36 +0200 (CEST)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.6.7
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.6.7
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 356C4259743; Mon, 5 May 2008 19:26:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Jt4SQ-000CgO-9Z; Mon, 05 May 2008 13:26:34 -0400
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 13:26:33 -0400
From: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Message-ID: <1CBB0A7B47D1B12C827C21CB@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <p06240802c444e18c18ba@[10.20.30.162]>
References: <p06240800c43d062af2cf@[10.20.30.249]> <481E9F9C.5030300@alvestrand.no> <p06240826c444c7ef17ff@[10.20.30.162]> <481F2B90.9080600@alvestrand.no> <p06240802c444e18c18ba@[10.20.30.162]>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Cc: idna-update@alvestrand.no
Subject: The "no consecutive hyphens" prohibition (was: Re: Domain names with leading digits (Re: Determining the basic approach))
X-BeenThere: idna-update@alvestrand.no
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IDNA update work <idna-update.alvestrand.no>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update>, <mailto:idna-update-request@alvestrand.no?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update>
List-Post: <mailto:idna-update@alvestrand.no>
List-Help: <mailto:idna-update-request@alvestrand.no?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update>, <mailto:idna-update-request@alvestrand.no?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 17:26:43 -0000
--On Monday, 05 May, 2008 09:22 -0700 Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org> wrote: >... >>> There is a second place. In >>> draft-klensin-idnabis-issues-07.txt, section 1.5.4.1.1 >>> prohibits labels that have a hyphen in positions 3 and 4 >>> unless they are A-labels. This is completely unnecessary. >>> >> This prohibition was made by ICANN in order to prevent >> speculation against prefixes in the time period before IANA >> announced the selection. > > Yep. So? That was years ago, and we're not ICANN. I agree with both of those. The only relevancy of ICANN in this context is that, for registries who follow ICANN's advice (independent of whether they are required to do so), this is not a new restriction. I do note that there appear to still be RACE names floating around (with a different prefix) and that folks periodically try to propose, and locally implement, different IDN schemes with different prefixes. >> As long as we never have to change the prefix, or introduce a >> second prefix for another purpose, it is unneccessary. How >> much do you want to bet that it will be? > > It is unnecessary regardless of introducing a second prefix. > We learned the first time that there are plenty of prefixes > available, and that preventing speculation was probably > overkill. We can deal with this when we think we want another > prefix, or ask ICANN to deal with it. It does not belong in an > IETF protocol. Ok. This is where we disagree. What belongs in an IETF protocol, especially one that is justified partially on the basis of extending the LDH principle into Unicode space, is what is necessary to support good, mnemonic, IDNs. Given that, and remembering that it is easier to relax rules later than to impose tighter ones, please turn your statement around and answer the question of why one would need hyphens in both the third and fourth positions of a domain name. If the answer is "changed prefix" or "some new protocol use of a special-format name" (similar to the "_" prefix for some SRV labels), then it would be entirely appropriate to update these documents to permit those additional uses (and no way to prevent it). If it is something else, I'm interested in hearing more about it. But I believe the question, today, is "do we gain anything by permitting those labels" rather than a need to prove that they are harmful. john
- Determining the basic approach Paul Hoffman
- Re: Determining the basic approach JFC Morfin
- Re: Determining the basic approach James Seng
- Re: Determining the basic approach YAO Jiankang
- Re: Determining the basic approach Martin Duerst
- Re: Determining the basic approach Martin Duerst
- Re: Determining the basic approach Paul Hoffman
- Re: Registry Restrictions Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Domain names with leading digits (Re: Determi… Paul Hoffman
- Domain names with leading digits (Re: Determining… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Domain names with leading digits (Re: Determi… Paul Hoffman
- Re: Domain names with leading digits (Re: Determi… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Domain names with leading digits (Re: Determi… Paul Hoffman
- Re: Domain names with leading digits (Re: Determi… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Registry restrictions (was: Re: Domain names with… John C Klensin
- The "no consecutive hyphens" prohibition (was: Re… John C Klensin
- Re: Registry restrictions (was: Re: Domain names … Erik van der Poel
- Re: Registry restrictions (was: Re: Domain names … Paul Hoffman
- Re: Domain names with leading digits (Re: Determi… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Registry restrictions Gervase Markham
- Re: Registry restrictions Vint Cerf
- Re: Registry restrictions JFC Morfin
- Re: Registry restrictions Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Registry restrictions Vint Cerf
- Re: Registry restrictions Paul Hoffman
- Re: Registry restrictions Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Registry restrictions JFC Morfin
- Re: Registry restrictions Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Registry restrictions John C Klensin
- RE: Registry Restrictions Shawn Steele