To:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
Date:
Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:58:42 -0400
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<20070410084928.GA32018@nic.fr>
Mail-Followup-To:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>,ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Reply-To:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Subject:
[ietf-provreg] Re: EPP Extensions for IDN
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 10:49:28AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Right and another example (may be more realistic) is company names in > Russia where high-tech organisations sometimes have a name where a > Latin-script acronym ("xml" for instance) is mixed with a > Cyrillic-script name. Yes, that is in fact a bigger concern. The artificial example I gave is actually ruled out by the ICANN guidelines at the moment, I think: 3. (a) In implementing the IDN standards, top-level domain registries will associate each label in a registered internationalized domain name, as it appears in their registry with a single script This restriction is intended to limit the set of permitted characters within a label. The problem arises exactly as you say, when you have a name for something (which is presumably a desired label) which cannot be expressed in a single script. My guess is that this state of affairs is what the exception is there to deal with: Alternatively, a label may be associated with a set of languages, or with more than one designator under the conditions described below. This is sort of a policy issue, though, and since I guess we're not in the business of telling registries what policies they should adopt, that's probably out of scope. > May be using RFC 4646 for the tag would be the easier way to support both? That seems like the best idea to me, yes. A -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada <andrew@ca.afilias.info> M2P 2A8 jabber: ajsaf@jabber.org +1 416 646 3304 x4110