Re: New Version Notification for draft-obispo-epp-idn-00.txt

So a couple of things,

First of all Janusz, who submitted that Afilias IDN I-D was working for me
at the time, I thought it seemed like a good idea at the time to encourage
standardization.

We were thinking primarily languages versus scripts due guidance we had from
John Klensin  at the time.

>Though more specifically, the point of even asking for the language in the
first place is to prevent homograph attacks. The use of languages rather
than scripts leads to slightly odd situations where a person wouldn't be
able to register a domain >like æçöÿ.info (a silly example, I know, but
valid), as though there's no language that uses all those characters in
their alphabet, it's in no way a vector for homograph attacks.

So specifically we thought about the above case and decided that a language
was a construct of sorts, usually indicated by a group or community
declaring and codifying its uniqueness. We figured any policy in
registration should be made against a language table that was in turn
defined by a recognized language authority.  Now "language authority" is a
wide range, but so are the number of defined languages. 

We decided against defining the policies (at that time in 2004, I am not
speaking to anyone's current practise/policy) by script because we didn’t
see a graceful way to address different spoken languages that shared the
same script.  Hence why we went with "language" versus script. 

Also, we voluntarily filed our language table with IANA back then when we
introduced German in .Info.  That was an attempt to encourage all the
registries to adopt at least the same tag nomenclature.  

Best Regards,

Michael Young
M:+1-647-289-1220



_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg