RE: Single-letter names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on therecent ICANN changes?)

John C Klensin <> Tue, 08 July 2008 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89CDD28C18D; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A42E13A67F7 for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AFOiqcUY5rbk for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A2E3A6948 for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1KFwA6-0005GQ-PD; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:14:10 -0400
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:14:09 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Ted Hardie <>,
Subject: RE: Single-letter names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on therecent ICANN changes?)
Message-ID: <1F600BADD00F15B4BF1C45EE@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <p06240609c497f5bee7f2@[]>
References: <C0F2465B4F386241A58321C884AC7ECC0706DD8A@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost .net> <p06240609c497f5bee7f2@[]>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:11:26 -0700
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--On Monday, 07 July, 2008 09:47 -0700 Ted Hardie
<> wrote:

> At 9:25 AM -0700 7/7/08, wrote:
>> > However, many concepts in modern Chinese
>> dialects require multiple syllables to express them and
>> therefore multiple characters to write them. So there isn't
>> really a one to one mapping of word, syllable, concept as
>> many people suppose.
> While there may not be a one-to-one mapping of word,
> character, and concept every time, there are many words
> and concepts which can be given (and commonly given)
> in a single character.  Forcing  those to use multiple
> characters to get around a policy limitation may introduce,
> rather than reduce confusion. 
> Why would we want to insist on that?

Given that there are more than enough characters in the Han
(CJK) script to make the risks of off-by-one errors fall in the
same range as two or three character domains in more alphabetic
scripts, I hope no one.  

Unless someone seriously believes that these limits --whatever
they might or might not be-- should be enforced by the IDNA
protocol, can we stop coping that mailing list on this
discussion?  I don't believe anyone has suggested protocol-level
enforcement so far.


Ietf mailing list