On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 09:14:40AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > Restrictions and Recommendations' > > <draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-09.txt> as Proposed Standard > > Summary: there are big problems with this draft. It should not be > published as-is. > > The biggest one is the fact that it spends most time criticizing the > business model of some domain name registries than talking about > internationalized domain names (sections 1 and 4, things like "in a > zone in which the revenues are derived exclusively, or almost > exclusively, from selling or reserving (including "blocking") as many > names as possible"). IETF typically does not talk about business > models of Internet actors (otherwise, many RFC would have to be > expanded...) and specially in derogatory terms. All these rants about > registries being for-profit or not should be removed, it is irrelevant > for IDNA. Nostalgic references to RFC 1591 are not really useful. I have read the draft and this last call thread. It remains unclear to me how the discussion section 4 adds any value, given that the - quite arbitrary - dichotomy introduced at its beginning is rendered irrelevant - and rightfully so - by this statement: Irrespective of in which of the two categories a registrar operates, it is the position of the IETF that significant conservatism in what is allowed to be registered, even for reservation purposes, and even more conservatism about what labels are actually entered into zones and delegated, is the best option for the Internet and its users. Earlier it even reads "As suggested above, the two categories above are not precise." Therefore I would suggest to remove section 4 and the corresponding parts in the introductory section 1 to focus on the errata based updates in section 5. -Peter -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
