Re: [ire] Variant Domain Names

Apologies, I was intending to use the term "activated". I have "allocated" on my mind from the launch discussions..

Thanks,
James

From: Bhadresh Modi <bmodi@afilias.info<mailto:bmodi@afilias.info>>
Date: Tuesday, 9 April 2013 3:06 AM
To: "ire@ietf.org<mailto:ire@ietf.org>" <ire@ietf.org<mailto:ire@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [ire] Variant Domain Names

More precise terms are certainly helpful, I think the main point is that the current set of "blocked" and "withheld" as shown in the draft is insufficient.

Perhaps it makes sense to simply use the same terms with the same definitions from the IDN TLD project that Andrew provided.

Regards,
Bhadresh

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
I have no idea how those terms got adopted, but I'd like to point out
the distinctions that were made by the variant issues project/IDN TLD
project:

Delegated: actually in a zone with an SOA and parent NS RRset.

Activated: in the DNS somehow.  (Delegated is a species of activated.
For instance, a DNAME would be activated but not delegated.)

Allocated: someone has administrative control over the name, but it is
not activated.  For instance, any domain on Hold in EPP would be
allocated.

Blocked: nobody is allowed to register the name.  For instance, in
.com nobody may register the label example (so example.com<http://example.com> is
blocked).

I think these distinctions are all extremely useful.

On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 12:07:18PM -0400, Bhadresh Modi wrote:
> 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<mailto: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<mailto:ire@ietf.org>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ire
> >
> >

> _______________________________________________
> ire mailing list
> ire@ietf.org<mailto:ire@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ire

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
_______________________________________________
ire mailing list
ire@ietf.org<mailto:ire@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ire