Re: [APTLD iname 24] Re: [idn] Proposed suggestions from Asia Pacific Top LevelDomain meeting

[James Seng <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

Wrong interpretion. It is not an issues of encoding.

The original issue was raised by Prof Kilnam Chon. His question was "Should
IDN work on non-alphanumeric ASCII characters too?" 

By default, since IDN is working on adding additional characters for DNS
labels, then this should naturally extent to non-alphanumeric ASCII such as
"&", "_", "@", "#" etc. To quote his example, "Should we consider AT&T.COM as
as part of IDN work?"

The conclusion of the discussion is that IDN is very complicated in itself. We
should not create more complication for IDN by dealing with non-alphanumeric
ASCII too.

-James "speaking as a member who attended the APTLD meeting" Seng

Kenny Huang wrote:
> 
> One comment :
> On issue 6 : Do we want to consider non alphanumberic US-ASCII ?
> 
> Implementations of the DNS protocols must not place any restrictions
> on the labels that can be used. That's the principle of RFC2181.
> This constraint also push many encoding and multilingual systems
> out from the specification.
> 
> My suggestion is : we disagree with the recommendation on issue 6.
> I am concerned that the effect may be to enforce an ASCII base in
> order to mandate UTF-5 by stealth.
> 
> Kenny Huang
> huangk@alum.sinica.edu
> 
> James Seng wrote:
> >
> > Is this the only comment from the inputs from APTLD? Are there any
> > disagreement about the recommendation? Or is there any other recommendation
> > for the draft-00 in general.
> >
> > If there is, please try to do before 10th March (dateline for IETF)
> >