Barry, > The discussion has raised the issue of working with IDNs and EAI. Do > we have consensus add a charter item for that? Is it necessary that > we do? If we want one, someone please propose charter text and one or > more milestones for it. > 6. Review proposed by EAI changes and make needed accommodations where appropriate. This effort might include strategies for handling domains with overlapping puny-code versions of an initial UTF-8 U-label... Feb 2012. (IDNA will take time, where DKIM WG involvement should improve the results.)
Resultant domains representing common administrations needed to handle rule changes in puny-code conversions. This will impact email significantly. ADSP might assist in determining whether puny-code referenced signatures relate to the resulting multitude of visual email addresses. While many consider DKIM limited to white-listing, ADSP in conjunction with some consolidation mechanism could assist in managing new TLDs and many related domains. -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
