IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"James Seng" <james@seng.sg> Thu, 03 July 2008 22:14 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 BC65F3A6A4C; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:14:37 -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 82E493A6A40 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 GYJO2HJsaHOa for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (ti-out-0910.google.com [209.85.142.191]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25843A69AD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id a6so37139tib.25 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender :to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references :x-google-sender-auth; bh=6mbzwLhc6GN+/MrGV6rEyhPRsJ4PoHcu2ERnKxQn7oA=; b=Z7J+bOtlDhYOj5LGU7V2HureHJpBS6wp0flbFk+QCMzd2ohdvCiPKMJblMWYNcnZUr MZXqY8wlLmubBxee5JBV0yqwhWkxpzKcA4BSVGoG7M3+cxz1qInHx14z9dAWVRYrPbE+ yTF779Us8CYEZgb7kshnkI8nI1t7vwk69Xkg0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references:x-google-sender-auth; b=TH2aN5jZ4jiJTUpV27wKAsRI0on10ADIHg0U2XXcP9ao9u6d3LKKyUm5kgYchwdNaX 3QuY2Aa5zoKidwkgEdv9jBsxmVucqz/XCFsYCQZyxf3BAhARY8s4ZwoChPBYVljxQEim yGK3n441zyOo6zoaybzCqnYfddm4ztrFU4vME=
Received: by 10.110.41.17 with SMTP id o17mr1271tio.18.1215123281333; Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.110.10.7 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <558a39a60807031514ra9323c2n9395306e7865fef1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:14:41 +0800
From: James Seng <james@seng.sg>
To: Lyman Chapin <lyman@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes?
In-Reply-To: <D400669B-EA1C-4494-8094-20DC762F0EB5@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20080701223655.14768.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <C7F7E8A9-C844-4E1C-827D-189D4937BA6B@acm.org> <14AE948B18197467AE4D96A4@p3.JCK.COM> <558a39a60807021729m1fc299c2ted96064ce73228a7@mail.gmail.com> <D400669B-EA1C-4494-8094-20DC762F0EB5@acm.org>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3ada3bae69f11f33
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, idna-update@alvestrand.no, ietf@ietf.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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

> At the moment, the condition is "no single Unicode code point." To
> the extent that a single CJK ideograph can be expressed using a
> single Unicode code point, this would represent the situation to
> which you say you would object. I will dig through my notes to find
> out why the "single character" condition was adopted -

Would you be able to explain why the condition is "no single Unicode
code point"? Whats the technical basis for that?

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email