Re: [idn] An ignorant question about TC<-> SC

[Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>]

[JS: bounced to me for "Header line too long". Rebounce it back to the
list with header snip. Take note]

At 10:06 01/10/28 +0800, xiang deng wrote:

>On  Saturday, October 27, 2001 2:58 PM, Patrik F$BgM(Btstr$B‹N(B
wrote:

> > I have not said it should. I like and appreciate the recommendation
the
> > Unicode Consortium gave the IETF, and that is to _NOT_ do
unification of
> > TC/SC or even try to come up with matching rules.
> >
> > Instead, multiple registrations in DNS, one for the SC and one for
the TC
> > version is recommended.
>
>Yes, multiple registrations in DNS is better than do nothing.
>But, there are still some problems can not solve:
>1). Just do one for the SC and one for the TC, it isn't enough. Because
other
>person can register mixed TC/SC domain name. How to deal with the
>disputations of
>registration. Such disputations will not disappear, if we have no real
>solution about it.
>it's policy issue.

This is a valid concern. It is ultimately a policy issue. But
it should be possible to produce some data/guidelines (e.g. as
an informational RFC) that registrars/registries can adopt.

It is much easier in such a context to deal with 1-n correspondences
than it is if an actual mapping is required.


>2). multiple registrations in DNS can solve a part of the issue, How to
>solve the
>delegation issue of subdomain and keep the consistency.
>it's technology issue.

I'm not really a DNS expert, but I think with something called
CNAME or DNAME, there is a very easy solution that will keep
consistency.


>3). if we provide multiple registration solution for customs, we must
>guarantee the multiple
>records belong to one custom. but from technology view, we can not
>guarantee it.

It's the customer's job to do that, and the registrar's job
to help them. No need for this WG to do anything.

Regards,   Martin.