ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-sl-wg] two of the assigned drafts are attached

  • To: gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-sl-wg] two of the assigned drafts are attached
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:36:41 -0400


from rfc1035 (std13):

The labels must follow the rules for ARPANET host names.  They must
start with a letter, end with a letter or digit, and have as interior
characters only letters, digits, and hyphen.  There are also some
restrictions on the length.  Labels must be 63 characters or less.

Now, while i used to think we should move away from the archaic rules over symbols, i have since tempered my goals: realism has to hit sometime. I think that ICANN policy should be to live within the technical limits set by the IETF, even if those limits may be (to some opinions like mine) too restrictive.

In this case, this precludes hyphens in 1 or 2 LDH ascii names unless the IETF clears them for use.

Specifically, while i think this should be changed, it is not currently open to ICANN policy change. Whether there _really_ is still a technical need or just a qwertyish policy based on old technological limitations is a moot point. I think that ICANN has to bow to IETF constriants, and the place for people like me to work on clearing away such hard coded technical policy is in the IETF.

I do want to make sure, however, that if there are any changes in IETF constraints, either in lifting requirements or adding requirements, then there should be some automatic process whereby any RNs based on those standards can be revisited. that issue is, however, larger then this subgroup (we are getting so compartmentalized)

I also think that there should be some method for initiating review of old technical limitations, but that too is probably an IETF issue as well, though ICANN should perhaps have a formal method for requesting such reviews.


On 30 apr 2007, at 15.12, Marilyn Cade wrote:

He also asked that I ask the group how it was intended to deal with '-', which was discussed with the two technical experts last week, but isn't documented, except in the transcript. I reviewed the transcript, and since it was Avri's question, wondered if she might want to ensure that the discussion is captured in the body of the report in some way, or footnoted on the recommendations page, or included in the write up on 'symbols'.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy