[ssac-gnso-irdwg] Re: Variants

["Jiankang YAO" <yaojk@xxxxxxxx>]

Re: Variants> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Edmon Chung 
> To: 'Steve Sheng' ; 'Greg Aaron' ; 'Yao Jiankang' ; 'Ram Mohan' 
> Cc: 'Jeremy Hitchcock' ; 'Julie Hedlund' ; 'Dave Piscitello' 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:05 AM
> Subject: RE: Variants
> 
> 
> As a matter of broad policy, strict requirements may not be appropriate, i.e. 
> as in specifying exactly which variants MUST be displayed and how.
> As you have pointed out, it is possible that different countries would have 
> different needs for the issue.
> 
> In general however, I would think delegated variants (i.e. those in the 
> zonefile) should be included, and that might be a good recommendation.
>

+1

> 
> It is also possible to envision displaying part of the language table (e.g. 
> the rows for the characters involved), or >have a link to the table so that 
> interested users can further check what else would be reserved.
> 
> For the IANA whois however, I think we should/could make some specific policy.
> At this time, I think the handling of .?? (.XN--FIQS8S) and .?? (.XN--FIQZ9S) 
> is simply wrong.  They appear to be 2 separate entries in the IANA whois and 
> neither mentions the other. 

+1

> For IANA whois:
> 1. the primary ("base" or "submitted" or "applied for") should always be 
> displayed as the "Delegation Record for" field
> 2. there should be a field to display the delegated variant(s)
> 3. user should be able to query the whois by the primary or the variant (and 
> end up at the same record)
> 4. the delegation should be considered to be one record (instead of 2 chinas)
>

in the current DNS technology, if you delegate one only, the other will be 
unresolvable.

if these 2 are delegated, the proposed bname soultuion in DNSEXT wg will make 
these 2 to get the identical resolution.




> 
> Edmon
> 
> 
> 
>