Re: [Idngwg] Request for discussion on public comment feedback on IDN Guidelines
Hi Sarmad, I was reviewing my email and I wasn’t sure whether we received feedback from SSAC on this, have we? Thanks, Dennis From: <idngwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org> Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 4:04 AM To: "steve.sheng@icann.org" <steve.sheng@icann.org> Cc: "idngwg@icann.org" <idngwg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Idngwg] Request for discussion on public comment feedback on IDN Guidelines Hi Steve, As discussed, please forward the following message to SSAC on behalf of IDN Guidelines Working Group (IDNGWG), which is working on revising the IDN Guidelines. Regards, Sarmad ========= Dear SSAC colleagues, You may know that a revised draft of IDN Implementation Guidelines recently underwent a Public Comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/idn-guidelines-2017-03-03-en>. In a comment<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-idn-guidelines-03mar17/2017-March/000...> submitted by Hugo Salgado from NIC Chile (.CL), it has been suggested to clarify the difference between “the use of IDN labels inside a TLD zone for records that are not-authoritative, like NS names and glue records." It further suggests that “a TLD can pose rules and restrictions for labels in the second (or third) level, but not downside and ‘sibling-side’. So my TLD can restrict a certain unicode point for registration purposes, but it could exist inside the TLD zone as an NS name in a level below the TLD as a glue record, and can exist at another TLD as a delegation, over which we don't have any jurisdiction.” “As an example, if I'm the registry of .example TLD and we don't allow U+00E1 LATIN SMALL LETTER A WITH ACUTE, we can't prohibit a record like: allowed.example. IN NS á.allowed.example á.allowed.example. IN A 192.0.2.1 and certainly we can't prohibit a delegation to other TLD: allowed.example. IN NS á.cl” The IDN Guidelines Working Group (IDNGWG) has found the comment significant. IDNGWG would like to get SSAC’s opinion on whether records which are “not-authoritative” should also be constrained to comply with IDNA2008 by the IDN Guidelines. If SSAC considers this relevant, IDNGWG would request for assistance from SSAC to suggest appropriate language for such a guideline. We would like to invite relevant SSAC members for a discussion with IDNGWG during one of its weekly calls, held on Thursdays at 11am UTC. IDNGWG can organize a call on a different day/time if suggested schedule is not suitable for SSAC. We look forward to your confirmation. Regards, IDN Guidelines WG ========
Hi Dennis Unfortunately we have not heard back. I had also sent a reminder. Regards Sarmad On 17-Aug-2017, at 12:20 AM, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com<mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>> wrote: Hi Sarmad, I was reviewing my email and I wasn't sure whether we received feedback from SSAC on this, have we? Thanks, 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: Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 4:04 AM To: "steve.sheng@icann.org<mailto:steve.sheng@icann.org>" <steve.sheng@icann.org<mailto:steve.sheng@icann.org>> Cc: "idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>" <idngwg@icann.org<mailto:idngwg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Idngwg] Request for discussion on public comment feedback on IDN Guidelines Hi Steve, As discussed, please forward the following message to SSAC on behalf of IDN Guidelines Working Group (IDNGWG), which is working on revising the IDN Guidelines. Regards, Sarmad ========= Dear SSAC colleagues, You may know that a revised draft of IDN Implementation Guidelines recently underwent a Public Comment[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2D...>. In a comment<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-idn-guidelines-03mar17/2017-March/000...> submitted by Hugo Salgado from NIC Chile (.CL), it has been suggested to clarify the difference between "the use of IDN labels inside a TLD zone for records that are not-authoritative, like NS names and glue records." It further suggests that "a TLD can pose rules and restrictions for labels in the second (or third) level, but not downside and 'sibling-side'. So my TLD can restrict a certain unicode point for registration purposes, but it could exist inside the TLD zone as an NS name in a level below the TLD as a glue record, and can exist at another TLD as a delegation, over which we don't have any jurisdiction." "As an example, if I'm the registry of .example TLD and we don't allow U+00E1 LATIN SMALL LETTER A WITH ACUTE, we can't prohibit a record like: allowed.example. IN NS ?.allowed.example ?.allowed.example. IN A 192.0.2.1 and certainly we can't prohibit a delegation to other TLD: allowed.example. IN NS ?.cl" The IDN Guidelines Working Group (IDNGWG) has found the comment significant. IDNGWG would like to get SSAC's opinion on whether records which are "not-authoritative" should also be constrained to comply with IDNA2008 by the IDN Guidelines. If SSAC considers this relevant, IDNGWG would request for assistance from SSAC to suggest appropriate language for such a guideline. We would like to invite relevant SSAC members for a discussion with IDNGWG during one of its weekly calls, held on Thursdays at 11am UTC. IDNGWG can organize a call on a different day/time if suggested schedule is not suitable for SSAC. We look forward to your confirmation. Regards, IDN Guidelines WG ========
participants (2)
-
Sarmad Hussain -
Tan Tanaka, Dennis