Re: [idn] opting out of SC/TC equivalence

["ben" <ben@cc-www.com>]

Hi Adam,

> > The solution to delivering the 3 benefits explained above is a
> > Chinese domain name system that uses language script TLDs- a TLD
of
> > <.traditional> for traditional CDNs (defined here as a CDN that
uses
> > all traditional characters) and a TLD of <.simplified> for
simplified
> > CDNs (defined here as a CDN that uses all simplified characters).
>
> This would limit people's choice of registration authority.

In my system, CDNs cannot be a mix of TC and SC.  If that is
considered "limit people's choices..." then I am afraid I am guilty.
However, can you come up with even one good reason why we should allow
a CDN to have mixed TC and SC?

>
> > The same techniques documented in this draft can also be applied
> > to the current gTLD and ccTLD registries by using SLDs.  In order
> > to be fair, everyone must agree to this system and make it a
> > standard.  In addition, every registry must change their current
> > registered second level domains to third level domains (ie.
> > <whatever>.<traditional>.TLD, <whatever>.<simplified>.TLD)
>
> I don't think there's any need to require that all domains
containing
> Chinese characters follow this convention.  It could be left up
> to each registrant whether they want to include <traditional> or
> <simplified> in their domain name.  It needn't be at the second
> level either.  The convention could be that clients with the added
> Chinese support would be suspicious of simplified characters
> anywhere to the left of .<traditional>. (wherever it appears) and
> be suspicious of traditional characters anywhere to the left of
> >.<simplified>. (wherever it appears).  This would allow things
> like <FOO>.<traditional>.ac.uk.  It could be recommended (but
> probably not required) that registration authorities never allow
> <traditional> or <simplified> to be registered under any zone, but
> rather require registrants to register <something>.<traditional> or
> <something>.<simplified>.  It could be recommended (but probably not

> required) that registrars register such names in pairs.
>
> One nice thing about your proposal is that it appears to be
orthogonal
> to IDNA.  Clients without the added Chinese support can still access
> all domain names, they just won't provide the extra hints when
mistyped
> names fail.
>
> AMC
>

I feel very strongly that there is a need to create a new type of TLD
(lsTLD- as described in my draft) to implement my idea to satisfy the
needs of CDN users.  Do you have any opinions on that?

Thanks
Ben Chan