Registration and Administration Recommendations for Chinese Domain Names
RFC 4713

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <>
To: RFC Editor <>
Cc: The IESG <>, <>,
Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: 

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 
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:

The process for such documents is described at

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

   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.