Re: Single-letter names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes?)
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 04 July 2008 22:38 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 588103A6AF3; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 386413A681E for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.378, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
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 N8aQwY4z9Lc4 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A4243A67D9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1KEtud-000P9X-2i; Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:37:55 -0400
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:37:53 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: William Tan <dready@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Single-letter names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes?)
Message-ID: <6A9128F1F67E25379425CE18@p3.JCK.COM>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>, James Seng <james@seng.sg>, idna-update@alvestrand.no, ietf@ietf.org, Lyman Chapin <lyman@acm.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
--On Friday, 04 July, 2008 15:01 -0400 William Tan <dready@gmail.com> wrote: > John, > > To add to your point, one should also consider the question of > embedded semantics in a single-character label. > > Alphabetic scripts such as Latin mostly represent sounds used > to make up words. While one can certainly find some legitimate > single-character words (such as the article "a" or the personal > pronoun "i") and dream up others, it would not be very > convincing in the face of your explanation #3. Agreed. > On the other hand, characters in ideographic scripts such as > Han are not mere sounds or glyphs; they represent one or more > concepts. Therefore, a single-ideographic-character TLD label > is certainly more justifiable. I would even go as far as to > suggest that it is essential in many cases. For example, "猫" > (U+ 732B) in both Simplified Chinese and Japanese means "cat" > as in English, not the abbreviation for Catalan nor the UNIX > command. The reverse translation of "cat" yields the exact > character in Simplified Chinese, though in Japanese sometimes > the Hiragana sequence "ねこ" is also used. One would be > hard-pressed to come up with a different character to > represent the same concept in Han, aside from the traditional > Chinese counterpart "??" (U+8C93). Yes. As I tried to indicate, I was trying to be brief and obviously left some things out as a result. While I agree with what you say above, it also opens another question. I'm not quite ready to agree with the often-expressed principle that people have some "right" to register particular names. For example, IBM clearly owns a well-known mark "ibm". That gives them some rights --in trademark law, rather than the DNS-- to prevent anyone else from using the string, at least in ways that would create confusion. But it doesn't give them any inherent "rights" to register the name in the DNS. In this specific case, while I don't see any reason to ban single-"ideographic"-letter TLDs, I also don't believe that the fact that U+732B, by itself, means "cat" creates any intrinsic right to register it in the DNS. If there were a compelling reason to ban single-letter ideographic TLDs, I would not consider your "cat" example to be particularly compelling because I don't believe there is a "right" to a TLD for cats or the equivalent. That distinction is important because I think it quite likely that as we look at other alphabetic scripts with relatively small numbers of characters, we are quite likely to find some where more, and more significant, words are spelled with only one character than is the case with Western European languages. And I believe the rule for those scripts, for the reasons given in my earlier note, should be "no single-letter domains", not "no single-letter domains unless one can find a dictionary entry". > I don't know what the present thinking is on the idea of > non-semantic TLDs, but IMHO the social expectations of DNS > usage is cast in stone. Jon's idea would simply shift the > semantics to the second level, thereby creating 24 roots > instead of a single "." As I indicated, I think that particular idea is no longer relevant (if it ever was). I'm happy to engage in speculation about whether it could ever have worked, but only in the presence of strong drink. john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: Single-letter names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2… John C Klensin