Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes?

"Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Thu, 03 July 2008 16:09 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 D4C963A6ABB; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 09:09:47 -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 B2F303A68A2 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.86
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.86 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.261, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 dQPVMvG8h8mL for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A37943A686E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KED93-0007HX-CV for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:57:57 +0000
Received: from hmbg-d9b88e39.pool.mediaways.net ([217.184.142.57]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:57:57 +0000
Received: from nobody by hmbg-d9b88e39.pool.mediaways.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:57:57 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes?
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 03:00:18 +0200
Organization: <http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <g4h866$ngd$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <20080701223655.14768.qmail@simone.iecc.com><C7F7E8A9-C844-4E1C-827D-189D4937BA6B@acm.org><14AE948B18197467AE4D96A4@p3.JCK.COM> <558a39a60807021729m1fc299c2ted96064ce73228a7@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hmbg-d9b88e39.pool.mediaways.net
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:09:44 -0700
Cc: idna-update@alvestrand.no
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

James Seng wrote:

> if the "character" is defined more broadly to cover "U-label"
> character, then I would have strong objections.

+1  And fortunately it's not our job to figure out what a term
like "IDN ccTLD" actually means, where that might be important.

> I remember it is a standing "tradition" that labels may not 
> be a single ascii character.

IIRC "SC SLDs" were recently permitted.  In this acronym soup
that's "single character second-level domains" affecting TLDs
with a contract not permitting such beasts.  ASCII characters,
[0-9A-Za-z].

No TLD is forced to adopt this idea, and many TLDs have their
own rules.

> But is there any technical reason we should forbid it? (e.g.
> 6.cn have not kill any kittens yet)

It is certainly an obstacle for *simple* definitions of what
constitutes "confusingly similar" or "typo resistent".  But I
guess there is no *simple* definition also covering typos in
IDN A-labels, so maybe that point is moot.

Unrelated:  The "2606" thread on the general list so far was
about many interesting topics, notably about <toplabel>s, but
not about the 2606bis draft.  

For the 3920bis-06 draft I sent this comment to the author:

> You claim to import <idnlabel> from RFC 3490, but there is
> no <idnlabel> in RFC 3490.  Besides you don't want only
> "xn--" labels, you want <ldh-label> not limited to "xn--".
 
> How about this, based on latest RFC 1123 toplabel erratum:
 
> | domain   = fqdn / address-literal
> | fqdn     = *(ldhlabel ".") toplabel
> | ldhlabel = letdig [*61(ldh) letdig]
> | toplabel = ALPHA   *61(ldh) letdig
> | letdig   = ALPHA / DIGIT
> | ldh      = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-"

 Frank

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf