Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] REMINDER-FOR REVIEW/COMMENT: Draft Slides for Brussels Meeting

["Robert C. Hutchinson" <rchutch@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes Steve- you captured my thinking.

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>    1. Cover WHOIS port 43 compatibility in a separate slide[24] [not a as
>    "model" under slide 17]:
>    2.    - Complete compatibility with existing port 43 request and
>    response in ASCII only   [NOT POSSIBLE]
>    3.    - Enhanced port 43 request allowing domain names in U-label form
>    or A-label form  [current proposal]
>    4.    - Enhanced port 43 request allowing domain names in U-label form
>    or A-label form plus requested script code
>    5.    -  Enhanced port 43 response allowing ASCII and UTF-8  [current
>    proposal]
>    6.    - Shift to another port - replacing port 43 - {discussion}
>    7.    - Shift to web-based port 80  HTML5 {discussion}
>    8.
>
>
>
> Hi all, I think Bob has a substantive comment about model 4. He wanted to
> separate it from the other three models. This reflects a thinking that
> backward compatibility is a separate issue from the models.
>
> Bob, did I capture your intent right, and what does the working group
> think?
>
> To recap, the three models are:
>
> Model 1: registrant submit in must be present language with option in local
> script.
> Model 2: registrants submit in local script, registrars provide point of
> contact for help.
> Model 3: registrants submit in local script, registrars do transliteration.
>
> Model 4: registrars provide backward compatibility for port 43 whois that
> is 8-bit clean.
>
> I agree with Bob that model 4 sounds like different from all other three
> models, it talks about details on how to make IDN in WHOIS happen, so
> essentially we could use model 4 as a way to implement model 1 and model 2.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Warmly,
> Steve
>