At 10:06 AM +0800 10/28/01, xiang deng wrote: >Yes, multiple registrations in DNS is better than do nothing.
Good, we agree here. >But, there are still some problems can not solve: And here too! >1). Just do one for the SC and one for the TC, it isn't enough. Because other >person can register mixed TC/SC domain name. If anyone on this list has said "just do one for each", they are incorrect. The right solution is "do as many as are needed". That number will change with names, of course. >How to deal with the disputations of >registration. Such disputations will not disappear, if we have no >real solution about it. >it's policy issue. Exactly right. It has nothing to do with the IETF. The IETF has never dealt with the exact same policy issue for *any* language, nor have we even started writing up policy proposals for any. Many examples have already been given, such as "color" and "colour", or "koln" and "k�ln". Although not identical, these types of examples have the same kinds of problems to end users as Traditional and Simplified Chinese do. >2). multiple registrations in DNS can solve a part of the issue, How >to solve the >delegation issue of subdomain and keep the consistency. >it's technology issue. Yes, but not one for the IDN WG. This affects all host delegations, not just ones that use internationalized names, and it has been a real-world problem for over a decade. If people have technical solutions for this very thorny issue, they should definitely bring them to the DNSEXT working group. >3). if we provide multiple registration solution for customs, we >must guarantee the multiple >records belong to one custom. but from technology view, we can not >guarantee it. Exactly right. That is the way it is for all languages (including US English), and it will affect everyone the same when we internationalize the DNS. In fact, it will also affect everyone the same for every internationalized protocol, not just DNS. There is no protocol now that says "mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be delivered to [EMAIL PROTECTED]" even though those two are more equivalent to English-speakers than traditional and simplified Chinese characters are to Chinese-speakers. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
