Re: [ire] Variant Domain Names

Bhadresh Modi <bmodi@afilias.info> Mon, 08 April 2013 16:08 UTC

Return-Path: <bmodi@afilias.info>
X-Original-To: ire@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ire@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77F9821F97D7 for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8AgPg827iwBm for <ire@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [66.199.183.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F1D821F97D5 for <ire@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ms5.on1.afilias-ops.info ([10.109.8.9] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <bmodi@afilias.info>) id 1UPEcO-0002Jo-52 for ire@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:08:28 +0000
Received: from mail-la0-f69.google.com ([209.85.215.69]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <bmodi@afilias.info>) id 1UPEcO-0001Lj-4S for ire@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:08:28 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f69.google.com with SMTP id ek20so8493089lab.4 for <ire@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=jP9cllKrYO/UkIQCCgzW1jiwY17D9Obm9SP+KAUyJKs=; b=QQQDXPWb038h3IXH4QpaGPNjrbdKN9VoHbvXYcM34rOoZ3X62kSRLYR8KxYd5dxkNK DoJrpdpAR+/DrY1Zh9El5YuwLtnmAuDOWZQYs7YoP+EEmLq6jTI27/t1aklpwYQhAaAI kiQg1rh0QoVw7NGf23YVbuhCtdbdzSfq2x3P3P8vXrf593NTZximYhnmr/pUIAvxO/3J MFljeuFU4ZK/fD93uVH0vzUzJOf+tN2l3jFD2nfSJvZA0N12kUTtbZ4oLjMIJNrJOJ0E iFtVdCgSJkbSn/Gzj2S0Y3c9FyrceeFlwmns9L/VCeJX1P+QYCn2JjU6TtEZvfA40ETh SWew==
X-Received: by 10.180.208.47 with SMTP id mb15mr14103590wic.16.1365437242053; Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.208.47 with SMTP id mb15mr14103158wic.16.1365437238191; Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.217.117.1 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CD87DA9F.76C42%james.mitchell@ausregistry.com.au>
References: <CD87DA9F.76C42%james.mitchell@ausregistry.com.au>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 12:07:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMi4Txwx_9w0EzsTD8Uhp-0cR7rmSkTVvN75PZ4uKYZrQ6ewng@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bhadresh Modi <bmodi@afilias.info>
To: "ire@ietf.org" <ire@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3864c8bbad704d9dba1bc
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnvb6p2L6YNCCy8EyHMO6o9GLa7/dM0UotLITXp04iIQYReXgGXnOYCbK87NjOn2DYUTmv1qUdViS7RHVZprVq5TWYLfyXUekUa7Zl1Dbt69+p+MCr7kz+nuSE/AlfnymJlQmJv
Subject: Re: [ire] Variant Domain Names
X-BeenThere: ire@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Internet Registration Escrow discussion list." <ire.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ire>, <mailto:ire-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ire>
List-Post: <mailto:ire@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ire-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ire>, <mailto:ire-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:08:30 -0000

I agree - we were using the "allocated" value in the previous revision to
differentiate between IDN variants that simply blocked registration and
variants that would actual resolve similar to the original domain name.
 With the omission of this value there is no longer any way to express this.

Regards,
Bhadresh


On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:29 AM, James Mitchell <
james.mitchell@ausregistry.com.au>; wrote:

> Gustavo,
>
> I would like the nameState of NNDNs to include "activated". The
> "allocated" value was in revision –01, however seems to have disappeared
> without reason? Adding "allocated" would make the NNDN consistent with the
> text in Section 6 that states that either domain objects or NNDNs may be
> used to represent variants.
>
> Also, the NNDN <crDate> should be optional as some registries may not
> track the creation date of reserved list entries.
>
> Regards,
> James
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ire mailing list
> ire@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ire
>
>