ECTED] On Behalf Of Vint Cerf
> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 3:33 AM
> To: John C Klensin
> Cc: James Seng; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org; Lyman Chapin
> Subject: Re: Single-letter names (was: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the
> recent ICANN changes?)
>
> john,
>
&g
john,
my reaction was specific to IDN single character TLDs. In some
languages these are complete words.
vint
On Jul 4, 2008, at 1:50 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Vint,
In the ASCII space, there have been three explanations offered
historically for the one-character prohibition on top and
s
John,
To add to your point, one should also consider the question of
embedded semantics in a single-character label.
Alphabetic scripts such as Latin mostly represent sounds used to make
up words. While one can certainly find some legitimate
single-character words (such as the article "a" or the
I feel that Edmon's report of the ICANN/GNSO point of view and the
positions of James Seng are shared by most of the groups we relate
with (Internet @large, open roots, ISO lobbies, Multilinc, MINC,
Eurolinc, ISOC France, ccTLDs, etc.). If this WG does not think they
are technically adequate th
--On Friday, 04 July, 2008 15:01 -0400 William Tan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
>
> To add to your point, one should also consider the question of
> embedded semantics in a single-character label.
>
> Alphabetic scripts such as Latin mostly represent sounds used
> to make up words. While
Vint,
In the ASCII space, there have been three explanations offered
historically for the one-character prohibition on top and
second-level domains. I've written variations on this note
several times, so will just try to summarize here. Of the
three, the first of these is at best of only histor
