Liaison statement
Response to COM16 - LS 190 on "IDN related standardization"

Submission date 2011-02-23
From IETF (Patrik Fältström)
To ITU-T SG16 (
Purpose For information
Liaisons referring to this Reply LS to IETF on IDN-related standardization (IETF LS 1019)
Attachments (None)
This is a response to liaison COM 16 – LS 190 – E, "LS to IETF, IAB,
ICANN, W3C, ISO TC 2, Unicode Consortium on IDN related

IETF has during fall of 2010 released a number of RFCs related to the
topic. For example the following:

5890 Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA):
Definitions and Document Framework. J. Klensin. August 2010. (Format:
TXT=54245 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC3490) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

5891 Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA): Protocol.
J. Klensin. August 2010. (Format: TXT=38105 bytes) (Obsoletes
RFC3490, RFC3491) (Updates RFC3492) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

5892 The Unicode Code Points and Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA). P. Faltstrom, Ed.. August 2010. (Format:
TXT=187370 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

5893 Right-to-Left Scripts for Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA). H. Alvestrand, Ed., C. Karp. August 2010.
(Format: TXT=38870 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

5894 Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA):
Background, Explanation, and Rationale. J. Klensin. August 2010.
(Format: TXT=115174 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

5895 Mapping Characters for Internationalized Domain Names in
Applications (IDNA) 2008. P. Resnick, P. Hoffman. September 2010.
(Format: TXT=16556 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

IETF is collaborating with Unicode Consortium that have also released
and updated a number of documents on the topic. For example Unicode
Technical Standard #46, "Unicode IDNA Compatibilty Processing" [UTS46],
Unicode Technical Report #36, "Unicode Security Considerations" [UTR36]
and Unicode Technical Standard #39, "Unicode Security Mechanisms"

IETF is also working with ICANN and their programme related to IDN
( which include rules and
recommendations for confusability that have implications on what domain
names to register.

To conclude, IETF see a large risk overlap between what this initiative
in the ITU-T is related to and work done in other SDOs. Because of
this, without any clear explicit charter for the work that clearly
identify work items that other SODs are not doing, we must recommend
ITU-T to not take up this as a new work item in SG16.