Peter, Stephane, I'd like to try a mini-survey to help clarify what Section 4 (and much of the rest of the document) are about. For each of the following, would your respective registries accept requests and delegate the strings? The strings are expressed as code point lists to avoid further confusion from differences in rendering machinery or rejection or attempted correction by email clients or other string handling software. Most of the above are from Latin script because they will be easier for most IETF participants (possibly including the two of you) to read and were easier for me to construct. Your answers may be different for some of them. I will happily post an explanation of each example after I get your responses or, if the IESG wanted them, sooner. (1) 006B 0075 0308 006E 0073 0074 006C 0069 0063 0068 (2) 0042 0075 0063 0068 0068 00E4 006E 0064 006C 0065 0072 (3) 006C 0069 0062 0072 D800 0061 0069 0072 0065 (4) 0069 006E 0074 0065 006C 006C 0069 0067 0065 006E 0074 0065 0007 (5) 1F9DB 1F9DF (6) 0BAF 0BBE 0BB5 0BB1 0BCD 0BB1 0BC8 0BAF 0BC1 0BAE 0BCD (7) 1D17B 5C0F 4E11 (8) 07AF 07F1 50BB 5B50 707C (9) 0066 0072 00E1 0067 (10) 0066 0075 00DF thanks, john --On Monday, March 3, 2025 23:31 +0100 Peter Koch <pk@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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
