John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Does the semantic distinction between 2 and ² really need to
>> be preserved in domain names? Suppose you have a company
>> called Foo² ("foo-squared"). How much damage is caused if
>> your Web site can be accessed not only through www.foo².com
>> but also through www.foo2.com?
>
> Doug, I don't know the answer to your question, but it takes us
> onto a slippery slope. If that site is accessible in either of
> those ways, does the organization whose name is really "Foo2"
> have any special claims? Is it best to keep them separate so
> that both have a shot at their names as they really write them?
> And, if the answer is "no, they should be combined", how is that
> position ultimately different from arguing that Foo and F�o are
> really the same name? Does this cause a whole new variety of
> name dispute and dispute resolution problems?
All these questions can be asked given the current framework too.
Consider a company name containing the word Ma�e and another
containing Masse (which are distinct words with distinct meanings).
These words are the same after IDN processing. So the scheme Doug is
proposing is already implemented, although � happens to not be
canonicalized into 2.
> I think there is a case to be made that only a very small
> percentage of the WG (and still less of the IETF) has actually
> understood all (or most) of that decision and its consequences.
> The percentage is clearly rising at this late date and I always
> get concerned when the whole IETF seems to be taking the word of
> a very small number of people that a decision that may have
> far-reaching impact is correct.
>
> But, is it worth revisiting the decision? Much as I am
> concerned about the potential for damage to the Internet
> resulting from putting this stuff into the DNS, I haven't seen a
> lot of justification for going around this particular loop
> again. I would feel more positive about doing so had matching
> and mapping issues with pairs of characters not come up before,
> but they have and people who didn't read themselves in have to
> bear some of the blame.
I agree, the current solution is not well understood, and there seems
to be no time to revisit all issues and wait for people to understand
the consequences.
