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

Vint Cerf <vint@google.com> Mon, 07 July 2008 15:45 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 8BFF328C199; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 08:45:55 -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 6819B3A6A40 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 YyG44GGU5ms4 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:05:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.33.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 306B43A6A1D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz5.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz5.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.69]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id m63N5Vir028815; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 00:05:31 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1215126333; bh=vzVTzqLnrHTWjERBux6h/aIMYu8=; h=DomainKey-Signature:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Message-Id:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:Subject: Date:To:X-Mailer; b=bxs6N2xqL7hoR2ySw/DrA2E+sj9Yt6gwYWxsT3YhEEfYsT g+gKpYBMSoVnrsImUP9GfPGfExRrSs+BGf9dYLOw==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type: message-id:cc:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer; b=FHZX18+skapxrmWmwOujKcXDX0WPaUoMxRbNcYBjfFmnO7lhpr/BXxx//r+4Lb2cJ DUZReGh2MMDA98UT26EXw==
Received: from smtp.corp.google.com (spacemonkey1.corp.google.com [192.168.120.115]) by wpaz5.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id m63N5RNN022656 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:05:28 -0700
Received: from [10.0.1.6] (ip68-98-162-154.dc.dc.cox.net [68.98.162.154]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.corp.google.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m63N4QRL030512 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:05:23 -0700
In-Reply-To: <558a39a60807031514ra9323c2n9395306e7865fef1@mail.gmail.com>
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> <558a39a60807031514ra9323c2n9395306e7865fef1@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1)
Message-Id: <FA303A8B-80BC-4F75-B42E-47A6A28547A7@google.com>
From: Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes?
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 19:04:44 -0400
To: "James Seng" <james@seng.sg>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:45:52 -0700
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

seems odd to me too, James.

vint


On Jul 3, 2008, at 6:14 PM, James Seng wrote:

>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update@alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update

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