Re: UTS46 "transitional period"

It depends on what you mean.

Registrars could and did allow users to enter in labels for registration
that would end up getting remapped to other labels before registration. That
is, they could let people enter in faß.de <http://fass.de> or ÖBB.at, even
though what was actually registered as far as the DNS is concerned was
fass.de and xn--bb-eka.at (=öbb.at <http://xn--bb-eka.at>), resp.

What was unfortunate is that apparently not all registrars made it clear to
the registrants exactly what was being registered.

They should never have allowed (I don't know whether any did or not)
registering punycode that was illegal, like xn--a.

Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 14:40, Chris Weber <chris_at_lookout.net> wrote:

> **
> On a tangent, under IDNA2003 rules, shouldn't registration and resolution
> of the punycode form of "faß.de <http://fass.de>", which is "xn--fa-hia.de"
> be illegal since the nameprep process would mapp the eszett to "ss"?
>
>
> On 6/27/2011 4:14 PM, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
>
> Once the registries (of that support the 4 special characters) have adopted
> bundling/blocking policies, then it will be possible for client software to
> safely move off of the transitional approach. So it is really dependent on
> the registries' behavior. Different clients may have different thresholds
> for when to move, depending on their estimation of when enough important
> registries have adopted bundling/blocking policies.
>
> > For example, when all Registries *and* all client software have moved
> to exclusively support IDNA2008
>
> "All client software" doesn't work, unless you have a coordinate switch
> date, which people concluded was impractical.
>
> Mark
> *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
>
>
Received on Tue Jun 28 2011 - 19:22:42 CDT