RE: [idn] Zone rules (was: wg milestones update)

["Jonathan Rosenne" <rosenne@qsm.co.il>]

Eric,

One has to decide: Either we are consistent or we are inconsistent, but we
cannot have it once one way and once the other.

I would go for as wide as possible equivalences, but make them global.

For example, take digits in Arabic. It is a widely used script, likely to be the
major internationalized script in several zones using several languages. Some
countries use Arabic (also known as European) digits, some countries use Indic
(also known, wrongly, as Arabic) digits. It may be assumed that a certain zone
would wish to define them as equivalent. If other zones do not, either because
they are not aware of the issue or because they had made a conscientious
decision, what would the poor end user experience when he tries to access a web
site he heard of over the radio?

This is not the case of an ignorant person like me trying to access a Chinese
location, this is the case of a person using his own language in his own
country, in the context of two equivalent representations of the same thing.

Jony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-idn@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 6:46 AM
> To: Jonathan Rosenne
> Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org; brunner@nic-naa.net
> Subject: Re: [idn] Zone rules (was: wg milestones update)
>
>
> Jon,
>
> Would you care to elaborate why an operational issue (for a zone file
> operator) has global scope? Please be specific to _this_ operational
> issue.
>
> > I think we should endeavor to avoid zone equivalence rules and make them all
> > global.
>
> I'm curious to know the rational(s) for:
>
> 	... [w]ithin a single zone, the zone manager MUST NOT be able to
> 	define equivalence rules that suit the purpose of the zone ...
>
> Cheers,
> Eric
>
>