Dear All, FYI: The report on the PC has been sent for posting. Regards, Sarmad From: Tan Tanaka, Dennis [mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com] Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 9:50 PM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>; idngwg <idngwg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Idngwg] Public Comment Response by IDNGWG - last call I’m good with the redlines. Thank you, Dennis From: <idngwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>> Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 9:55 AM To: "idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>" <idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Idngwg] Public Comment Response by IDNGWG - last call Dear All, Please find attached the updated response to the public comments, as per the discussions of the WG. I am attaching the redline version, which shows the history of the changes. However, please make any changes in the clean version so that these are more clearly visible. I have asked the Public Comment team if the report is Ok to publish in the format attached. I will let you all know their response once I hear back from them. In case the prescribed format is required, I will move the comments in blue to the next section, else this is the final draft version. We will be submit the report for posting on Monday morning pacific time (11 Sept.) after incorporating any final feedback. Thank you for the great effort you are all putting in. Looking forward to any final input on this report. Regards, Sarmad From: Mats Dufberg [mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se] Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 1:59 PM To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>>; idngwg <idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>>; Feher, Kal <Kalman.Feher@team.neustar<mailto:Kalman.Feher@team.neustar>> Subject: [Ext] Re: Proposed new CL1 and CL2 Analysis My updated proposal is that we give the same reply to both comments, and that we use Kal's text with slight modification and an addition: CL1: A clarification is suggested regarding the use of IDN labels inside a TLD zone for records that are not-authoritative, e.g. the NS and glue records. So a TLD can restrict a Unicode point for registration purposes, but it could exist inside the TLD zone. So “labels inside a zone” should be clarified to mean “labels of authoritative names inside a zone”. CL2: Add a new guideline: "a TLD can't restrict the codepoints of names inside its zone for which it's not authoritative (such as delegations to sibling zones or glue records names), but should check such labels are syntactically valid U-labels (in RFC7940 sense)". CL1 and CL2 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 plan to clarify the scope of the document to indicate that only the owner-name of the DNS records which are added to the zone file by the registration system are in-scope. Excluded from scope are any glue records and right-hand or target names. We have, however, asked SSAC for advice, and if they have a different opinion we will consider adjusting the Guidelines accordingly. --- Mats Dufberg DNS Specialist, IIS Mobile: +46 73 065 3899 https://www.iis.se/en/[iis.se]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iis.se_en_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=WvU86i3XED1oyY9fYrV1gx80Im0_Q_Xb1YLQXR3mI60&s=RoHNMpsFUep1H9cBTiKc13LQBxYEej4GdWQjFdtWQ9I&e=> From: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>> Date: Thursday 7 September 2017 at 21:30 To: Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg@iis.se<mailto:mats.dufberg@iis.se>>, idngwg <idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: Proposed new CL1 and CL2 Analysis 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> [mailto:idngwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mats Dufberg Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 6:38 PM To: idngwg <idngwg@icann.org<mailto: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/[iis.se]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iis.se_en_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=KTETvEaGPwPcawI-QmNa-kiv-ZBvdgyyLm-mxd028M4&m=k8U1NaZyXu8seoQvfWNSQbpyy9kHhV3tBzD3elyEm58&s=tsp7wahngaE1ZQ3C-5406W-_eS0nUcaXWwY3pvv2l_s&e=>