[JS: bounced to me for "Header line too long". Rebounce it back to the list with header snip. Take note]
At 10:06 01/10/28 +0800, xiang deng wrote: >On Saturday, October 27, 2001 2:58 PM, Patrik F$BgM(Btstr$B�N(B wrote: > > I have not said it should. I like and appreciate the recommendation the > > Unicode Consortium gave the IETF, and that is to _NOT_ do unification of > > TC/SC or even try to come up with matching rules. > > > > Instead, multiple registrations in DNS, one for the SC and one for the TC > > version is recommended. > >Yes, multiple registrations in DNS is better than do nothing. >But, there are still some problems can not solve: >1). Just do one for the SC and one for the TC, it isn't enough. Because other >person can register mixed TC/SC domain name. How to deal with the >disputations of >registration. Such disputations will not disappear, if we have no real >solution about it. >it's policy issue. This is a valid concern. It is ultimately a policy issue. But it should be possible to produce some data/guidelines (e.g. as an informational RFC) that registrars/registries can adopt. It is much easier in such a context to deal with 1-n correspondences than it is if an actual mapping is required. >2). multiple registrations in DNS can solve a part of the issue, How to >solve the >delegation issue of subdomain and keep the consistency. >it's technology issue. I'm not really a DNS expert, but I think with something called CNAME or DNAME, there is a very easy solution that will keep consistency. >3). if we provide multiple registration solution for customs, we must >guarantee the multiple >records belong to one custom. but from technology view, we can not >guarantee it. It's the customer's job to do that, and the registrar's job to help them. No need for this WG to do anything. Regards, Martin.
