At 15:13 -0500 3/6/09, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
But depending on whether you think the text I quoted is normative, 1123 may actually forbid those IDNs at the top level. Which would be a bad thing, I think.
I'm not sure what...a bad thing would be forbidding IDNs or is a bad thing removing the prohibition on IDNs...anyway. I think that there's going to be some room to question the old texts due to new requirements.
While we can't always upend the installed base because we want to expand the capabilities, sometimes it's the way the rules were written that is the issue.
Or are you saying that display issues coming from ASCII-only labels in a BiDi display context need to govern the contents of zone files. If so, I think that really really needs to get raised in idnabis soon. That's not my understanding of the issue so far.
I"ll preface my response by saying - I'm not all that confident in my knowledge of IDNs and the BiDi issue. But when I talked with some folks around the ICANN circus, there was conventional wisdom that there would be no admission of a delegation beginning or ending with a digit to the root zone. This bar was in place because of the BiDi issues as I understand from Patrik Faltstrom's blog.
And, from what I have heard, I believe "display issues" is at the heart of the problem.
I'm sure Patrik is active in the IDNABIS WG. So if it is an issue, he'd have spoken about it.
Still, seriously, all this aside, I doubt we will ever want "manpages.5" as a domain name.
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
