IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names  
Home | Advertise on idnforums | Premium Membership

Go Back   IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names > IDN Discussions > General Discussion

General Discussion Feel free to talk about anything and everything in this board.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 20th December 2011, 11:11 AM
555 555 is offline
ком.ком コム.コム
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,141
iTrader: (33)
Rep Power: 1682
555 has disabled reputation
IDN VIP: Study of Issues Related to the Delegation of IDN Variant TLDs

Registrants
A registrant is in some sense in the best position to refine his or her expectations of
what will happen with a name, but is also constrained by registry policies and the
available registry and (where they are involved) registrar systems in what the registrant
receives. In particular, in our example we are supposing a registrant of example.X, so
the variant relationship is at the parent. If the parent operates by doing automatic
mirroring (by, for instance, using a DNAME record to point Y to X), then the user might
not be aware that he or she is in fact registrant of two different DNS names. (Compare
also to the system administrator discussion, above.)

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/integr...dec11-0001.pdf
__________________
ロレックス.com رولكس.com Ролекс.com Порше.com 路易威登.com 必胜宅急送.com 香港迪士尼乐园.com Hermès.com Nestlé.com
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 20th December 2011, 11:25 AM
555 555 is offline
ком.ком コム.コム
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,141
iTrader: (33)
Rep Power: 1682
555 has disabled reputation
Re: IDN VIP: Study of Issues Related to the Delegation of IDN Variant TLDs

5. Discussion of Issues: Treatment of Variant Labels
Once variant labels are identified, a range of possible states and corresponding actions may be
taken on those labels. Thus, a variant management mechanism could encompass both active
use of labels in the DNS, and prevention of labels from use in the DNS. The possible states that
apply to a name are as follows:
Blocked: A status of some label with respect to a zone, according to which the label is
unavailable for allocation to anyone. The term “to block” denotes the registry (the zone
operator) taking this action.
Withheld: A status of some label with respect to a zone, whereby the label is set aside for
possible allocation to some entity. In this strict sense, a withheld name is not actually allocated.
The term “to withhold” denotes the registry (the zone operator) performing the setting aside.
Allocated: A status of some label with respect to a zone, whereby the label is associated
administratively to some entity that has requested the label. This term, and its cognates
“allocation” and “to allocate”, represents the first step on the way to delegation in the DNS.
When the registry (zone operator) allocates the label, it is effectively making a label a candidate
for activation. Allocation does not, however, affect the DNS at all.
Activated/Active: A status of some label with respect to a zone, indicating that there are DNS
resource records at that node name; or else that there are subordinate names to that name,
even though there are no resource records at that node name. In the case where there are
resource records at the node name, any resource record will do. In the case where there are
subordinate names but no resource records (except those to support DNSSEC), the label names
an empty non-terminal. A registry (zone operator) setting the active status activates the name,
or performs activation.
Delegated: A status of some label with respect to a zone, indicating that in that zone there are
NS resource records at the label. The NS resource records create a zone cut, and correspond to
an SOA record in the subordinate domain. The act of entering the NS records in the zone is
delegation, and to do that is to delegate. This definition is largely based on RFC 1034
20
; the
reader should consult RFC 1034 for detailed discussion of how the DNS is broken into zones.
Mirrored: A status of some active label with respect to a zone, indicating the isomorphism of
the namespace beginning with that label, and at least one other namespace beginning with
another active label in the zone. If two domain names are mirrored, then for a namespace

20
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1034.txt44
starting with one, the namespace starting with the other is isomorphic to the first, subject to the
usual DNS loose consistency strictures. The act of setting two or more labels to be mirrored and
maintaining the namespace correctly is mirroring. Currently, there are two different techniques
for this. The first is aliasing: CNAME, DNAME, and other such techniques that redirect a name or
a tree, effectively substituting one label for another during DNS lookup. The second is by using
provisioning constraints, such that an underlying provisioning system always effects a change in
all of the names whenever that change is effected in one of the names. The set of domain
names (not labels) that are supposed to be the beginning of isomorphism are mirrors. Mirrors
whose namespaces have not been maintained to preserve isomorphism are broken mirrors.
The state values blocked, withheld, and allocated are mutually exclusive. The active (which
includes but is not limited to delegated and mirrored) state usually implies that allocation has
occurred.
These states may result in a different user experience, as well as having an impact on the
operations of ICANN, the TLD registry operator, and other stakeholders that are part of the
Internet ecosystem. This section discusses the issues that arise in this area as a result of IDN
variant TLD labels.
__________________
ロレックス.com رولكس.com Ролекс.com Порше.com 路易威登.com 必胜宅急送.com 香港迪士尼乐园.com Hermès.com Nestlé.com
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 20th December 2011, 11:29 AM
555 555 is offline
ком.ком コム.コム
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,141
iTrader: (33)
Rep Power: 1682
555 has disabled reputation
Re: IDN VIP: Study of Issues Related to the Delegation of IDN Variant TLDs

Additionally, the review compares each applied-for gTLD string against existing TLDs. If
an applied-for gTLD string failed the String Similarity review due to similarity to an
existing TLD it would not pass the Initial Evaluation.
__________________
ロレックス.com رولكس.com Ролекс.com Порше.com 路易威登.com 必胜宅急送.com 香港迪士尼乐园.com Hermès.com Nestlé.com
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 20th December 2011, 01:41 PM
555 555 is offline
ком.ком コム.コム
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,141
iTrader: (33)
Rep Power: 1682
555 has disabled reputation
Re: IDN VIP: Study of Issues Related to the Delegation of IDN Variant TLDs

Another alternative to using specialized DNS records is to use “parallel provisioning,” whereby
regular delegations are made using NS records, and the manager of the zone is obligated via
contractual or other means to ensure the contents of those zones are synchronized
__________________
ロレックス.com رولكس.com Ролекс.com Порше.com 路易威登.com 必胜宅急送.com 香港迪士尼乐园.com Hermès.com Nestlé.com
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 06:12 PM.

Site Sponsors
Your ad here
buy t-shirt
מחיר הזהב

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Copyright idnforums.com 2005

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54