Re: [ietf-provreg] Re: EPP Extensions for IDN

[Gregory Berezowsky <gberezow@ca.afilias.info>]

On 12-Apr-07, at 11:33 AM, Tan, William wrote:

>
> Dan Maharry wrote:
>> RFC4646 maybe a way forward, but is it possible to look at this  
>> unambiguously but in a more compact way?
>> IDNs are domain names using the Unicode character set which is  
>> divided into codepages.
>> So maybe all the <domain:create> command actually needs is the  
>> Unicode name of the domain and the codepage on which those  
>> characters are located.
> When you say codepages, do you mean scripts? "Code page" is a  
> legacy encodings in my dictionary, and have very little to do with  
> Unicode other than the fact that Unicode imported characters from  
> them.
>
>> From reading this discussion, that covers the Simplified Chinese 
>> \Kanji issue of writing out 'East Capital' (I think) - the owner  
>> of Tokyo.com should register two IDNs, one for each codepage \  
>> character set.
>>
>> Registries could let it be known which code pages they support and  
>> registrars likewise
>>
>> So you get
>> <domain:create>
>> 	<name>blahblah.com</name>
>> 	<IDN:codepage>1232</IDN:codepage>
>> ...
>> </domain:create>
>>
>> And the A-name is derived later on - name and codepage are the  
>> primary key for the name in the registry.
>>
>
> I would advocate for looser interpretation of the script/language/ 
> codepage value. Registries today use a variety of tag types for  
> that field. NeuStar uses ISO 639-2 to identify our tables. It is  
> quite conceivable that another registry may allow many Latin  
> characters in a table, and then allows the registration to be  
> optionally tagged with a language just for statistics collection  
> purposes.

A possibility could be for the value to be a reference to a table (or  
subtable...) as suggested in informational RFC 4290.  The URI for the  
supported table(s) for a given registry could be published in its EPP  
greeting.  This would allow quite open-ended definition of what a  
registry allows while making it fairly simple (and standardized) to  
determine from the client side what a registry actually supports.

>
> Likewise, different registries collect and store variations of U- 
> label and A-label combination. Some only take the A-label, does  
> IDNA toUnicode to validate the characters, and then toASCII again  
> to make sure it matches the original A-label. Some take both the U- 
> label and A-label, and perform a variation of the previous steps.  
> So, my suggestion is to offer the ability to hold a U-label in EPP,  
> but make it optional in the schema.
>
> For example, we could have:
>
> <domain:create>
>  <name>xn--rsum-bpad.com</name>
>  <IDN:ulabel>résumé.com</IDN:ulabel>
>  <IDN:tag type="iso639-2">fr</IDN:tag>
> </domain:create>
>
>
>
> =wil

---
Gregory Berezowsky
Systems Architecture Team Lead
Afilias Canada