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

[Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>]

--On 2001-09-01 00.44 +0800
"=?utf-8?B?dHNlbmdsbUDoqIjntrLkuK3lv4Mu5Lit5aSnLnR3?="
<tsenglm@cc.ncu.edu.tw> wrote:

>            As Patrik F�¤ltstr�¶m  described , if it is a mechanism in
> UNICODE consosium , then they have the version update procedures and IDNA
> also treat  the version update in UNICODE , why it can not be updated step
> by step  to  increse it ?

Very simple answer.

Let's assume that the table day one include the following characters:

A
B
C
D
E
F

We agree that the simple equivalence rules for 1-1 mapping maps A->B.

This means that the following characters are available for domain name
registration:

B
C
D
E
F

People register domainames such as:

B.example.com.
C.example.com.
D.example.com.
E.example.com.
F.example.com.

Five different people register these five domains, which are different.

If one type in A.example.com in the browser, nameprep will map that name to
B.example.com. So, A.example.com and B.example.com are treated as "the same
domain".

Now, let's say that we increase the size of that table, and decide that D
and E are equivalent, so D->E mapping should be added.

This means that only the following characters are allowed:

B
C
E
F

The domains D.example.com and E.example.com are equivalent.

Now the questions, and I want you to answer them. Short answers are
required:

(1) Should the holder of D.example.com or the holder of E.example.com be
forced to give back his domain?

(2) Who is making that descision?

(3) Who will tell the domain name holder that he is not allowed to have his
domain anymore?

     paf