Re: [provreg] Publishing of the IDN Table EPP Mapping IETF Draft

[Kim Davies <[e-mail]>]

Hi James, Hi all,

The first draft of the IDN Table EPP Mapping has been submitted to the IETF.  I co-authored this draft with Francisco Obispo and Luis Muñoz from Uniregistry to provide a mechanism for getting IDN Table information for the registration of IDNs, using the EPP domain name mapping, and optionally with the IDN mapping extension ( draft-ietf-eppext-idnmap ).  We would like this draft to be included in a re-charting of the EPPEXT Working Group.  The draft information is provided below.

URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gould-idn-table-00.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gould-idn-table/
Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gould-idn-table-00

Please review the draft and provide any feedback.

I’ve reviewed this draft, and the -01 update, and have some belated feedback on this document.

Along with colleagues in the community, I have been working on draft-davies-idntables (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davies-idntables) and its goal is to document a universal format for “IDN tables”, intended to supersede and be a full superset of the panoply for formats that are out there today. This format has a specific schema, is intended to be fully machine readable, and allow implementation using a generic LGR-capable engine. Based on draft-gould-idn-table I believe it should be fully capable of representing the IDN table data described in the document.

I would recommend recasting this proposed mapping to utilise draft-davies-idntables as the mechanism for describing code point eligibility, and making the <info> verb in the EPP extension a mechanism for transmitting fully-formed label generation rulesets (the term for IDN tables in draft-davies-idntables). It would provide for maximum reuse of the grammar, plus provide the additional benefit that should a registry have a more complex policy than simple codepoint eligibility that it can be accurately conveyed.

Given the term “IDN tables” is being gradually replaced with “label generation rulesets” (LGRs) in ICANN’s work, as a more generic term that is not specific to IDNs, it is worth considering using this terminology elsewhere in this document.

If there are particular considerations that mean draft-davies-idntables wouldn’t be a suitable format, that would be useful feedback to help us iterate the draft-davies-idntables document with additional requirements.

cheers,

kim