Dear Mats, all,
CL2 Analysis: The WG has come to the conclusion that that is out of scope of the Guidelines.
We have written to SSAC and we may be expecting a response from them in the context, as we discussed briefly today. In case we do get some language from SSAC as requested, and WG does consider to include it, this response may not accommodate that scenario. Regards, Sarmad From: idngwg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mats Dufberg Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 6:38 PM To: idngwg <idngwg@icann.org> Subject: [Idngwg] Proposed new CL1 and CL2 Analysis Current: CL1 Analysis: This is a useful observation and the WG agrees that the IDN label the guidelines are currently referring to are those which are authoritative in the zone. We will clarify this is meant by default and call out any specific reference to non-authoritative data in the guidelines explicitly to ensure there is no ambiguity. Proposed: CL1 Analysis: This is a useful observation and the WG agrees that the IDN label the guidelines are currently referring to names being registered under the TLD in question. We will clarify that this the scope of the document, and that DNS records as such are only in-scope when there is direct connection to the registered name. Current: CL2 Analysis: The WG is currently considering if the guidelines should cover data which is not authoritative for the relevant zone. If the WG considers it relevant after discussions, appropriate text will be added, either as part of the discussion on scope or else as a guideline specific for such data. Proposed: CL2 Analysis: The WG has come to the conclusion that that is out of scope of the Guidelines. --- Mats Dufberg DNS Specialist, IIS Mobile: +46 73 065 3899 https://www.iis.se/en/