Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



With apologies for coming late to this thread -

Any proposal for a new gTLD must satisfy a number of "string criteria" that will be specified explicitly in the RFP, including the requirements that the U-label must not:

(a) be identical to an existing TLD;
(b) be identical to a Reserved Name;
(c) consist of a single character;
(d) consist of two characters, unless (a) it consists of a single Letter and a single Digit (in either order), or (b) it is an IDN string and the two characters are registered as permitted for two- character labels in the relevant script/language;
(e) consist entirely of Digits;
(f) be a hexadecimal number consisting of the Digit “0” followed by the uppercase or lowercase Letter “x||X” followed by a sequence of one or more characters all of which belong to the set of uppercase or lowercase Letters “a||A” through “f||F” and the Digits “0” through “9”; (g) be an octal number consisting of the uppercase or lowercase Letter “o||O” followed by a sequence of one or more characters all of which belong to the set of Digits “0” through “7”; (h) contain any Unicode code point that is classified as DISALLOWED or UNASSIGNED by RFC nnnn (currently “The Unicode Codepoints and IDNA,” draft-faltstrom-idnabis-tables-05.txt); (i.1) [if IDN Language Reference Tables have been defined] contain any Unicode code point that is not present in the IDN Language Reference Table to which the Application refers; (i.2) [if IDN Language Reference Tables have not been defined] contain any Unicode code point that is classified as CONTEXTUAL RULE REQUIRED by RFC nnnn (currently “The Unicode Codepoints and IDNA,” draft-faltstrom-idnabis-tables-05.txt);
(j) begin or end with a Hyphen; or
(k) contain Hyphens in both the third and the fourth position.

In addition, the A-label obtained by applying the IDNA algorithm specified in RFC 3492 to the proposed string must:

(l) be identical to the A-label specified in the Application; and
(m) consist of no more than 63 characters.

(Note: the capitalized terms will be formally defined in a Definitions section of the RFP.)

Having read most, but not all, of the postings to this thread, I believe that these rules cover many (but probably not all) of the cases that have been discussed. Things will get both simpler and more complicated when the IDNAbis WG completes its work, but within ICANN there is a clear intention to track that work as closely as possible given the timing constraints of the new gTLD program. Many of the devils that concern the IETF, of course, are in the details of the Reserved Names list. If there are problematic cases other than those that would have to involve the Reserved Names list, I would very much like to hear about them.

- Lyman

On Jul 1, 2008, at 6:36 PM, John Levine wrote:
This does not mean that ICANN won't listen to the IETF; it means
that there will be voices more familiar to ICANN saying things
different than we are.

One of the few ICANN committees that actually works is the SSAC, the
Security and Stability Advisory Committee.  It includes a lot of
people we know, starting with Steve Crocker, the chair.  I cannot ever
recall a time when ICANN acted contrary to the advice of the SSAC.

So although I agree that there's a lot not to like about ICANN, the
chances that they will do technically dangerous things are low.

http://www.icann.org/committees/security/

R's,
John
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]