At 13:56 -0400 3/9/09, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
"globalness" may be expressed (i.e. IDNA). Or is there some other thing you think ought to be permitted that would be closed off by John's position?
I'm not sure (as this is all second hand arguing). ;) I have gotten the feeling that some folks, perhaps John/perhaps not, have been arguing that the specs in 1123 were sacred and ought not to change lest other bad things happen. IOW, maintaining the status quo of a "working Internet" was imperative.
I suppose my confusion is now a bit deeper. If A-labels conform to the rules in 1123 and all U-labels can be translated to A-labels, is BiDi an issue (for the DNS)?
If A-labels are what is in the DNS, isn't the DNS taken care-of? And therefore all of this talk about what U-labels are good for TLDs belongs in fora for other protocols (URL's/IRL's, SMTP, etc.) or policy on things like bundling (ICANN)?
BTW, I was under the impression that ICANN wanted a root zone without any confusion, no homonyms, etc., but the IDN test bed has that - the two Chinese-language[0] entries are pronounced the same but written differently.
[0] Mandarin/simplified and Mandarin/traditional -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468 Getting everything you want is easy, if you don't want much. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
