At 1:04 PM -0400 3/9/09, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >His suggestion is to re-iterate the alphabetic-only criterion, >except to allow one extension to permit A-labels conforming to >IDNA2008 (which work, note, is not yet complete). In addition, I >think he believes that the document should also require that any >U-label that is to correspond with an A-label that is added to the >root zone must _also_ be alphabetic.
...give or take. Some language/script combinations require non-alphabetic characters to represent real words. The people who speak those languages would not call those characters "non-alphabetic". For example, if Unicode required you to have two characters to represent "e with umlaut", and "e" and a "combining umlaut", one can argue ad nauseam whether or not "combining umlaut" was alphabetic. There is not a technical name for "alphabetic and the additional characters you need to form words", nor is there a definitive list. A suggestion would be "word characters, explicitly excluding numerals and symbol characters" (because some people might say that a copyright character is a word character). >I will say that I am (personally, no hats) uneasy importing to the >technical constraints on top level labels what seem to me to be policy >considerations. Such policy considerations seem to me to be the sort >of thing that ought to be handled in policy-making bodies set up for >the purpose. At the same time, I accept the argument that there are >strong technical reasons to minimize the changes to rules about the >root zone, since we know there are many DNS-using systems in the world >built around fragile readings of various RFCs. So I'm of two minds >about the position I've laid out above. +2 (+1 for each mind), unfortunately. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
