[UA-discuss] Issue needs discussion and closure

[Mark Svancarek]

Here is my reasoning:

We forbid script mixing in the root for well-understood reasons.  A few exceptions were carved out, though.
The same thought process could be applied to second level and below.  It's not an obligation, but the benefits to the user are the same and I think it is safe to say that it's a good practice to apply those same restrictions and exemptions to any label in a domain name.
The local part is even less restricted than the 2LD.  But again, I think the same benefits to the users apply.

Given the perceived benefits, is there any concern about defining a good practice on creation of local parts by a mail service provider?  (It would be written more clearly than below...)

-----Original Message-----
From: Tan Tanaka, Dennis [mailto:dtantanaka at verisign.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 12:49 PM
To: Mark Svancarek <marksv at microsoft.com>
Cc: Ajay Data <ajay at data.in>; ua-discuss at icann.org
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] Issue needs discussion and closure


> On Mar 11, 2018, at 9:00 AM, Mark Svancarek via UA-discuss <ua-discuss at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> We should recognize that the local part rules are very permissive and therefore this should be an ALLOWED case per the spec.  But I vote that UASG declare it as a NOT RECOMMENDED case EXCEPT for script combinations which are already allowed to be mixed in the root zone.

I would stop at the first part and add that each mail admin set its own rules as far as mailbox names. The second part is troublesome as it mixes mailbox names with the (dns) root zone. I don't see the need for a connection. Am I missing something?

-Dennis