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

[liana.ydisg@juno.com]

Hi, Paf:

This exactly the type of question the CJK unification likes to
resolve for CJK domains.  That is the reason we argue for
not releasing [nameprep] prematurely until we know what
is the first step to be released without damage the long 
term goal of IDN. 

And that is the reason, Chinese only distribute numbers
in their domain registration. 

Liana
 

On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 22:40:00 +0200 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=
<paf@cisco.com> writes:
> --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
>