[UA-discuss] Issue needs discussion and closure

Mark Svancarek marksv at microsoft.com
Sun Mar 11 19:15:45 UTC 2018

Discussing with Dennis, we wonder if M3AAWG already has a recommendation on this topic.  If so, we should adopt theirs.

-----Original Message-----
From: UA-discuss [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 2:59 PM
To: ua-discuss at icann.org; ua-eai at icann.org
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] Issue needs discussion and closure

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 06:43:34PM +0000, Mark Svancarek via UA-discuss wrote:
> Here is my reasoning:
> We forbid script mixing in the root for well-understood reasons.

But we don't forbid script mixing in the root.  The LGR effort is busily trying to set the correct rules for this, but the root already has more than one script, and there are defintiely potential labels corresponding to Japanese words that require script mixing.  The rules are actually aimed at prohibiting mixing of _writing systems_, which in the last go round was approximated as "script".

> The same thought process could be applied to second level and below.

But this gets harder the lower in the tree you go, because there is no authority to enforce it.  Moreover, things that would be a very bad idea for the root, such as (say) Egyptian hieroglyphs, would be just fine at other layers of the DNS.  And there's the problem of different scripts in different labels, which is a permanent and unresolvable problem because of the nature of the DNS.

> 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.

What is certainly safe to say is that you should not create identifiers where you don't understand what the implications are.  

Best regards,

Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

More information about the UA-discuss mailing list