Registration and Administration Recommendations for Chinese Domain Names
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: The IESG <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-xdlee-idn-cdnadmin-09.txt The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Registration and Administration Recommendations for Chinese Domain Names' <draft-xdlee-idn-cdnadmin-09.txt> as an Informational RFC. The IESG would also like the IRSG or RFC-Editor to review the comments in the datatracker (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=10774&rfc_flag=0) related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the comment log. The IESG contact person is Mark Townsley. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xdlee-idn-cdnadmin-09.txt The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html. Thank you, The IESG Secretary
Abstract: Many Chinese characters in common use have variants, which makes most of the Chinese Domain Names (CDN) have at least two different forms. The equivalence between Simplified Chinese (SC) and Traditional Chinese (TC) characters is very important for CDN registration. This memo defines some basic concepts and specifies the proposed registration and administration procedure of Chinese domain names based on the more general guidelines of RFC 3743 to avoid the problems that may be caused by the variants. It will be useful for understanding and using the tables defined in [LVT-SC] and [LVT-TC]. Protocol Quality Review of overlap with chartered IETF work was requested of the DNS Directorate, the IESG, and Scott Hollenbeck. IESG Note: This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish is not based on IETF review for such things as security, congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion. Readers of this document should exercise caution in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment. See RFC 3932 for more information.