[idn] Re: Is space allowed in a hostname?

[Simon Josefsson <simon+idn@josefsson.org>]

John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com> writes:

>> Does the semantic distinction between 2 and ² really need to
>> be preserved in domain names?  Suppose you have a company
>> called Foo² ("foo-squared").  How much damage is caused if
>> your Web site can be accessed not only through www.foo².com
>> but also through www.foo2.com?
>
> Doug, I don't know the answer to your question, but it takes us
> onto a slippery slope.  If that site is accessible in either of
> those ways, does the organization whose name is really "Foo2"
> have any special claims?  Is it best to keep them separate so
> that both have a shot at their names as they really write them?
> And, if the answer is "no, they should be combined", how is that
> position ultimately different from arguing that Foo and Föo are
> really the same name?  Does this cause a whole new variety of
> name dispute and dispute resolution problems?

All these questions can be asked given the current framework too.
Consider a company name containing the word Maße and another
containing Masse (which are distinct words with distinct meanings).
These words are the same after IDN processing.  So the scheme Doug is
proposing is already implemented, although ² happens to not be
canonicalized into 2.

> I think there is a case to be made that only a very small
> percentage of the WG (and still less of the IETF) has actually
> understood all (or most) of that decision and its consequences.
> The percentage is clearly rising at this late date and I always
> get concerned when the whole IETF seems to be taking the word of
> a very small number of people that a decision that may have
> far-reaching impact is correct.
>
> But, is it worth revisiting the decision?   Much as I am
> concerned about the potential for damage to the Internet
> resulting from putting this stuff into the DNS, I haven't seen a
> lot of justification for going around this particular loop
> again.  I would feel more positive about doing so had matching
> and mapping issues with pairs of characters not come up before,
> but they have and people who didn't read themselves in have to
> bear some of the blame.  

I agree, the current solution is not well understood, and there seems
to be no time to revisit all issues and wait for people to understand
the consequences.