Independent Submission J. Levine Request for Comments: 6927 Taughannock Networks Category: Informational P. Hoffman ISSN: 2070-1721 VPN Consortium May 2013
Independent Submission J. Levine Request for Comments: 6927 Taughannock Networks Category: Informational P. Hoffman ISSN: 2070-1721 VPN Consortium May 2013
Variants in Second-Level Names Registered in Top-Level Domains
在顶级域中注册的二级名称中的变体
Abstract
摘要
Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA) provides a method to map a subset of names written in Unicode into the DNS. Because of Unicode decisions, appearance, language and writing system conventions, and historical reasons, it often has been asserted that there is more than one way to write what competent readers and writers think of as the same host name; these different ways of writing are often called "variants". (The authors note that there are many conflicting definitions for the term "variant" in the IDNA community.) This document surveys the approaches that top-level domains have taken to the registration and provisioning of domain names that have variants. This document is not a product of the IETF, does not propose any method to make variants work "correctly", and is not an introduction to internationalization or IDNA.
应用程序国际化域名(IDNA)提供了一种方法,可以将以Unicode编写的名称子集映射到DNS中。由于Unicode的决定、外观、语言和书写系统惯例以及历史原因,通常有人断言,有不止一种方式可以写出合格读者和作者认为相同的主机名;这些不同的写作方式通常被称为“变体”。(作者注意到,IDNA社区中对术语“变体”有许多相互冲突的定义。)本文档调查了顶级域名在注册和提供具有变体的域名时所采取的方法。本文件不是IETF的产品,没有提出任何使变体“正确”工作的方法,也不是对国际化或IDNA的介绍。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
本文件不是互联网标准跟踪规范;它是为了提供信息而发布的。
This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value for implementation or deployment. Documents approved for publication by the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
这是对RFC系列的贡献,独立于任何其他RFC流。RFC编辑器已选择自行发布此文档,并且未声明其对实现或部署的价值。RFC编辑批准发布的文件不适用于任何级别的互联网标准;见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6927.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息,请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6927.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有(c)2013 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件,因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................3 2. Terminology .....................................................4 3. Base Documents ..................................................5 4. Domain Practices of gTLDs .......................................6 4.1. AERO .......................................................6 4.2. ASIA .......................................................6 4.3. BIZ ........................................................6 4.4. CAT ........................................................6 4.5. COM ........................................................7 4.6. COOP .......................................................7 4.7. INFO .......................................................7 4.8. JOBS .......................................................7 4.9. MOBI .......................................................7 4.10. MUSEUM ....................................................8 4.11. NAME ......................................................8 4.12. NET .......................................................8 4.13. ORG .......................................................8 4.14. POST ......................................................9 4.15. PRO .......................................................9 4.16. TEL .......................................................9 4.17. TRAVEL ...................................................10 4.18. XXX ......................................................10 5. Domain Practices of ccTLDs .....................................10 5.1. BG ........................................................10 5.2. BR ........................................................10 5.3. CL ........................................................10 5.4. CN ........................................................10 5.5. ES ........................................................11 5.6. EU ........................................................11 5.7. GR ........................................................11 5.8. IL ........................................................11 5.9. IR ........................................................11 5.10. JP .......................................................11 5.11. KR .......................................................12
1. Introduction ....................................................3 2. Terminology .....................................................4 3. Base Documents ..................................................5 4. Domain Practices of gTLDs .......................................6 4.1. AERO .......................................................6 4.2. ASIA .......................................................6 4.3. BIZ ........................................................6 4.4. CAT ........................................................6 4.5. COM ........................................................7 4.6. COOP .......................................................7 4.7. INFO .......................................................7 4.8. JOBS .......................................................7 4.9. MOBI .......................................................7 4.10. MUSEUM ....................................................8 4.11. NAME ......................................................8 4.12. NET .......................................................8 4.13. ORG .......................................................8 4.14. POST ......................................................9 4.15. PRO .......................................................9 4.16. TEL .......................................................9 4.17. TRAVEL ...................................................10 4.18. XXX ......................................................10 5. Domain Practices of ccTLDs .....................................10 5.1. BG ........................................................10 5.2. BR ........................................................10 5.3. CL ........................................................10 5.4. CN ........................................................10 5.5. ES ........................................................11 5.6. EU ........................................................11 5.7. GR ........................................................11 5.8. IL ........................................................11 5.9. IR ........................................................11 5.10. JP .......................................................11 5.11. KR .......................................................12
5.12. MY .......................................................12 5.13. NZ .......................................................12 5.14. PL .......................................................12 5.15. RS .......................................................12 5.16. RU .......................................................12 5.17. SA .......................................................12 5.18. SE .......................................................13 5.19. TW .......................................................13 5.20. UA .......................................................13 5.21. VE .......................................................13 5.22. XN--90A3AC ...............................................13 5.23. XN--MGBERP4A5D4AR ........................................13 6. Acknowledgements ...............................................13 7. Security Considerations ........................................14 8. Informative References .........................................14
5.12. MY .......................................................12 5.13. NZ .......................................................12 5.14. PL .......................................................12 5.15. RS .......................................................12 5.16. RU .......................................................12 5.17. SA .......................................................12 5.18. SE .......................................................13 5.19. TW .......................................................13 5.20. UA .......................................................13 5.21. VE .......................................................13 5.22. XN--90A3AC ...............................................13 5.23. XN--MGBERP4A5D4AR ........................................13 6. Acknowledgements ...............................................13 7. Security Considerations ........................................14 8. Informative References .........................................14
Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA) [RFC5890] allows host names in the DNS [RFC1035] to contain characters from the Unicode repertoire. Some Unicode characters are considered to be "variants" of one another. Because of the 20th century reform of Chinese writing, there is often more than one representation of what Chinese speakers think of as the same character. Some languages written in Latin characters with accents and diacritical marks, known as decorated characters, allow the decorations to be omitted in some situations; for example, French sometimes omits accents on capital letters, depending on country and culture. Due to the difficulty of representing decorated characters in ASCII systems, many users have informally used undecorated characters in DNS host names, even when they are not linguistically equivalent to the decorated versions.
应用程序国际化域名(IDNA)[RFC5890]允许DNS[RFC1035]中的主机名包含Unicode指令库中的字符。一些Unicode字符被认为是彼此的“变体”。由于20世纪的中文写作改革,在中国人看来,同一个汉字往往不止一种。一些用带有重音和变音符号的拉丁文字书写的语言,称为装饰文字,在某些情况下允许省略装饰;例如,法语有时省略大写字母上的重音,这取决于国家和文化。由于在ASCII系统中很难表示修饰字符,许多用户在DNS主机名中非正式地使用了未修饰字符,即使它们在语言上与修饰版本不同。
There is no single agreed-on definition of "variant". In 2012, ICANN said that variants "occur when a single conceptual character can be identified with two or more different Unicode Code Points with graphic representations that may be visually similar" (this definition was previously available at http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds). ICANN's IDN Variant Issues Project report [VIPREPORT] says that "[t]here is today no fully accepted definition for what may constitute a variant relationship between top-level labels". RFC 3743 [RFC3743] (an Informational RFC, not the product of the IETF) says that the idea of variants is "wherein one conceptual character can be identified with several different Code Points in character sets for computer use".
对“变体”的定义没有统一的一致意见。2012年,ICANN表示,变体“发生在单个概念字符可以用两个或多个不同的Unicode代码点进行识别时,这些代码点的图形表示可能在视觉上相似”(该定义以前在http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds). ICANN的IDN变体问题项目报告[VIPREPORT]说,“目前,对于顶级标签之间的变体关系,还没有完全公认的定义”。RFC 3743[RFC3743](一种信息性RFC,不是IETF的产品)表示,变体的概念是“一个概念性字符可以通过字符集中的几个不同代码点识别,以供计算机使用”。
The proper handing of variant names has been a topic of extensive debate and research, with little consensus reached on how to handle them or even what characters are variants of each other. Many people
变体名称的正确处理一直是一个广泛争论和研究的话题,对于如何处理它们,甚至对于哪些字符是彼此的变体,几乎没有达成共识。许多人
would like variant names to behave "the same", for a diverse range of meanings of "same". In some cases, it is a textual similarity, such as variants having corresponding DNS records; in some, it is functional similarity, such as variant names resolving to the same web server; while in others, it is user experience similarity, such as names resolving to web sites that, while not identical, are perceived by human users as equivalent.
希望变体名称表现为“相同”,因为“相同”具有不同的含义。在某些情况下,这是一种文本相似性,例如具有相应DNS记录的变体;在某些情况下,这是功能上的相似性,例如变体名称解析为同一web服务器;而在另一些情况下,用户体验的相似性,例如网站名称的解析,虽然不完全相同,但被人类用户视为等价。
This document provides a snapshot of variant handling in the top-level domains (TLDs) contracted by ICANN, so-called gTLDs (generic TLDs) and sTLDs (sponsored TLDs), as of late 2012. We chose those domains because ICANN requires each TLD to describe its IDN and variant practices, and the TLD zone files are available for inspection, to verify what actually goes into the zones. This document also contains a small sampling of so-called ccTLDs (country code TLDs, the TLDs that consist of two ASCII letters) for which we could find information.
本文档提供了截至2012年底ICANN签约的顶级域(TLD)、所谓的GTLD(通用TLD)和STLD(赞助TLD)中变体处理的快照。我们选择这些域是因为ICANN要求每个TLD描述其IDN和变体实践,并且TLD区域文件可供检查,以验证实际进入区域的内容。本文件还包含所谓的国家代码TLD(国家代码TLD,由两个ASCII字母组成的TLD)的小样本,我们可以找到相关信息。
Since "variant" can mean vastly different things to different people, there is also no agreement about when two zones are supposed to "behave the same". Also, the gTLDs and sTLDs might have different views of what variants are and are not required to report to ICANN about their policies.
由于“变体”对不同的人意味着截然不同的事情,所以对于两个区域何时应该“表现相同”也没有一致意见。此外,GTLD和STLD可能对哪些变体是和不需要向ICANN报告其政策有不同的看法。
We use some terminology that has become generally agreed to when discussing variant names, although we openly admit that such agreement is not complete and the terminology continues to change.
在讨论变体名称时,我们使用了一些已被普遍认可的术语,尽管我们公开承认,此类协议并不完整,术语也在不断变化。
Bundle: The IDN practices documents (see below) can identify sets of code points that are considered variants of each other using Language Variant Tables, defined in [RFC3743]. A set of names in which the characters in each position are variants is known as a bundle or, more technically, as an "IDL Package". The variant rules vary among languages, and for the same language can vary among TLDs. Many languages do not define variant characters and hence do not have bundles.
Bundle:IDN实践文档(见下文)可以使用[RFC3743]中定义的语言变量表识别被视为彼此变体的代码点集。每个位置的字符都是变体的一组名称称为bundle,或者更严格地说,称为“IDL包”。变体规则因语言而异,同一语言的变体规则因TLD而异。许多语言不定义变体字符,因此没有捆绑包。
Allocated: A name is allocated if sponsorship of that label in some zone has been granted. This is similar to what many people refer to as "registered".
已分配:如果某个区域的标签获得赞助,则分配名称。这类似于许多人所说的“注册”。
Active: A name is active if it appears as an owner name in a zone. Most allocated names are active, but some are not.
活动:如果名称在区域中显示为所有者名称,则该名称处于活动状态。大多数分配的名称是活动的,但有些不是。
Blocked: Some names cannot be registered at all. For example, some registries allow one name in a bundle to be registered and block the rest.
阻止:某些名称根本无法注册。例如,一些注册中心允许注册捆绑包中的一个名称,并阻止其余名称。
Withheld: Some names can only be allocated under certain conditions. For example, some registries permit only the registrant of one name in a bundle to register or activate other names in the same bundle.
保留:某些名称只能在特定条件下分配。例如,一些注册中心只允许捆绑包中一个名称的注册人注册或激活同一捆绑包中的其他名称。
Parallel NS: Multiple names in a bundle are provisioned in the TLD with identical NS records, so they all are handled by the same name servers.
并行NS:捆绑包中的多个名称在TLD中使用相同的NS记录进行配置,因此它们都由相同名称的服务器处理。
DNAME aliasing: The DNAME [RFC6672] DNS record creates a shadow tree of DNS records, roughly as though there were a CNAME in the shadow tree pointing to each name in the target tree. DNAMEs have been used both to provide resolution for several names in a bundle and to provide resolution for every name under a TLD.
DNAME别名:DNAME[RFC6672]DNS记录创建DNS记录的影子树,大致就像影子树中有一个CNAME指向目标树中的每个名称一样。DNAMEs既可用于为捆绑包中的多个名称提供解析,也可用于为TLD下的每个名称提供解析。
ICANN has published a variety of documents on variant management. The most important are the "Guidelines for the Implementation of Internationalized Domain Names" issued in Version 1.0 [G1] and Version 3.0 [G3].
ICANN已经发布了各种关于变体管理的文件。最重要的是1.0版[G1]和3.0版[G3]中发布的“国际化域名实施指南”。
ICANN says that TLDs are supposed to register an IDN practices document with IANA for each language and/or script in which the TLD accepts IDN registrations, to be entered in the IANA Repository of IDN Practices [IANAIDN]. The practices document lists the Unicode characters allowed in names in the language or script, which characters are considered equivalent, and which of an equivalent group is preferred. Some TLDs have been more diligent than others at keeping the registry up to date. Also, some TLDs have tables for a few languages and scripts, while others (notably .COM, .NET, and .NAME) have a large set of tables, including some for languages and scripts that are no longer spoken or used, such as Runic and Ogham. The authors also note that many of the tables in the IANA registry are clearly out of date, containing URLs of policy pages that no longer exist and contact information for people who have left the registry.
ICANN表示,TLD应向IANA注册TLD接受IDN注册的每种语言和/或脚本的IDN实践文件,并将其输入IANA IDN实践知识库[IANAIDN]。实践文档列出了语言或脚本中名称中允许的Unicode字符,哪些字符被认为是等效的,哪些是等效组中的首选字符。一些TLD比其他TLD更努力地更新注册表。此外,一些TLD具有用于几种语言和脚本的表,而其他TLD(尤其是.COM、.NET和.NAME)具有大量的表,包括一些用于不再使用的语言和脚本的表,如Runic和Ogham。作者还注意到IANA注册表中的许多表显然已经过时,其中包含不再存在的策略页面的URL以及离开注册表的人员的联系信息。
Some of the ICANN agreements with each TLD [ICANNAGREE] describe the TLD's IDN practices, but most don't.
ICANN与各TLD[ICANNAGREE]签订的一些协议描述了TLD的IDN实践,但大多数协议没有描述。
This list covers most of the current set of gTLDs. In most cases, the authors have also checked the zone files for the gTLD to verify or augment the policy description.
此列表涵盖了当前GTLD的大部分。在大多数情况下,作者还检查了gTLD的区域文件,以验证或扩充策略描述。
The .AERO TLD has no IDNs and no rules or practices for them.
.AERO TLD没有IDN,也没有相关的规则或实践。
The .ASIA domain accepts registrations in many Asian languages. They have IANA tables for Japanese, Korean, and Chinese. The IANA tables refer to their CJK IDN policies [ASIACJK], which say that applied-for and preferred IDN variants are "active and included in the zone". No IDN publication mechanism is described in the documentation, but since the zone file contains no DNAMEs, they must be using parallel NS for variants.
.ASIA域接受多种亚洲语言的注册。他们有日本、韩国和中国的IANA表格。IANA表格参考了他们的CJK IDN政策[ASIACJK],该政策指出,申请的和首选的IDN变体“处于活动状态,并包含在区域内”。文档中没有描述IDN发布机制,但由于区域文件不包含DNAMEs,因此它们必须对变体使用并行NS。
ICANN gave the registry (Neustar) non-specific permission to register IDNs in a letter in 2004 [TWOMEY04A]. The IDN rules were apparently discussed with ICANN but not defined; see Appendix 9 of the registry agreement [ICANNBIZ9].
ICANN在2004年的一封信[TWOMEY04A]中给予注册中心(Neustar)非特定许可注册IDN。IDN规则显然与ICANN进行了讨论,但没有定义;见注册协议附录9[ICANNBIZ9]。
They have about a dozen IANA tables. No IDN publication mechanism is described, but from inspection, it appears that variants are blocked.
他们有十几张IANA的桌子。未描述IDN发布机制,但从检查结果来看,变体似乎已被阻止。
The IDN rules are described in Appendix S, Part VII.2 [ICANNCATS] of the ICANN agreement. "Registry will take a very cautious approach in its IDN offerings. IDNs will be bundled with the equivalent ASCII domains". The only language is Catalan. No IDN publication mechanism is described.
《ICANN协议》附录S第VII.2部分【ICANNCATS】中描述了IDN规则。“注册中心将在其IDN产品中采取非常谨慎的做法。IDN将与同等的ASCII域捆绑在一起”。唯一的语言是加泰罗尼亚语。没有描述IDN发布机制。
Appendix S includes "The list of non-ASCII-characters for Catalan language and their ASCII equivalent for the purposes of the defined service", which implicitly describes bundles. The bundles consist of names with accented and unaccented vowels, U+00E7 ("c with cedilla") and a plain c, and the Catalan "ela geminada" written as two l's separated by a U+00B7 ("middle dot") and the three characters "l-l".
附录S包括“加泰罗尼亚语言的非ASCII字符列表及其用于定义服务的ASCII等效字符”,其中隐式描述了捆绑包。这些组合包括带有重音和非重音元音的名称,U+00E7(“c带cedilla”)和普通c,加泰罗尼亚语“ela geminada”写为两个l,由U+00B7(“中间点”)和三个字符“l-l”分隔。
When a registrant registers an IDN, the registry also includes the ASCII version. From inspection of the zone file, the ASCII version is provisioned with NS, and the IDN is a DNAME alias of the ASCII version.
当注册人注册IDN时,注册中心还包括ASCII版本。通过检查区域文件,ASCII版本配置了NS,IDN是ASCII版本的DNAME别名。
ICANN and Verisign have extensive correspondence about IDNs and variants, including letters to ICANN from Ben Turner [TURNER03] and Russell Lewis [LEWIS03].
ICANN和Verisign有大量关于IDN和变体的通信,包括Ben Turner[TURNER03]和Russell Lewis[LEWIS03]给ICANN的信件。
The IANA registry has tables for several dozen languages, including archaic languages such as hieroglyphics and Aramaic. Verisign publishes documents describing scripts and languages [VRSNLANG], character variants [VRSNCHAR], registration rules [VRSNRULES], and additional registration logic [VRSNADDL].
IANA注册中心有几十种语言的表格,包括象形文字和亚拉姆语等古代语言。Verisign发布描述脚本和语言[VRSNLANG]、字符变体[VRSNCHAR]、注册规则[VRSNRULES]和其他注册逻辑[VRSNADL]的文档。
In Chinese, variants are blocked (see [VRSNADDL]). In other languages, there is no bundling or blocking.
在中文中,变体被阻止(参见[VRSNADLL])。在其他语言中,没有捆绑或阻塞。
The .COOP TLD has no IDNs and no rules or practices for them.
.COOP TLD没有IDN,也没有相关的规则或实践。
The IANA registry has a table for German. The German table notes that "the Eszet ... character used in the German script will be mapped to a double 's' string (i.e. 'ss')". The domain also offers names in Greek, Russian, Arabic, Korean, and other languages. The list and IDN tables are on the registry's web site [INFOTABLES].
IANA注册中心有一个德语表。德语表指出,“德语脚本中使用的Eszet…字符将映射到双精度的“s”字符串(即“ss”)。该域名还提供希腊语、俄语、阿拉伯语、韩语和其他语言的域名。列表和IDN表位于注册表的网站[INFOTABLES]。
Afilias says (not in a published policy) that it does not allow Korean characters with different widths and that there are no variants in .INFO.
Afilias说(不是在公布的政策中),它不允许使用不同宽度的韩语字符,并且.INFO中没有变体。
Appendix 9 of the registry agreement [ICANNINFO9] refers to a 2003 letter from Paul Twomey [TWOMEY03] that refers to blocking variants.
注册协议[ICANNINFO9]的附录9提到了Paul Twomey[TWOMEY03]2003年的一封信,其中提到了阻止变体。
The .JOBS TLD has no IDNs and no rules or practices for them.
.JOBS TLD没有IDN,也没有针对它们的规则或实践。
The zone file has about 22,000 IDNs. Afilias says (not in a published policy) that .MOBI supports Simplified Chinese only and that the language table for this is the same as that used by .CN.
区域文件大约有22000个IDN。阿菲利亚斯说(不是在公布的政策中)MOBI只支持简体中文,并且其语言表与.CN使用的语言表相同。
Variant characters are blocked from registration. The domain has no tables at IANA. Appendix S of the registry agreement [ICANNMOBIS], says that IDNs are provisioned according to [G1].
变体字符被阻止注册。域在IANA上没有表。注册协议[ICANNOMBIS]的附录S规定,IDN是根据[G1]提供的。
The zone file has many IDNs, but spot checks find that many are lame or dead. A 2004 letter from Paul Twomey [TWOMEY04] refers to [G1].
区域文件中有许多IDN,但抽查发现许多IDN是跛脚的或死的。Paul Twomey在2004年的一封信[TWOMEY04]中提到[G1]。
The registry has a detailed policy page [MUSEUMPOLICY]. IDNs are accepted in Latin and Hebrew scripts, with plans for Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Cyrillic, and Greek. They do no bundling or blocking, but names that may be confusable due to visual similarity are not allowed. These are apparently determined by manual inspection, which is practical due to the very small size of the domain.
注册表有一个详细的策略页面[MUSEUMPOLICY]。IDN可以用拉丁语和希伯来语书写,计划使用阿拉伯语、汉语、日语、韩语、西里尔语和希腊语。它们不进行捆绑或阻塞,但不允许使用由于视觉相似性而容易混淆的名称。这些显然是通过手动检查确定的,这是实际的,因为域的大小非常小。
The .NAME TLD is managed the same as .COM.
.NAME TLD的管理方式与.COM相同。
The .NET TLD is managed the same as .COM.
.NET TLD的管理方式与.COM相同。
A 2003 letter from Paul Twomey [TWOMEY03A] refers to [G1]. The registry has a list of IDN languages [PIRIDN], several written in Latin script, plus Chinese and Korean. A Questions page [PIRFAQ] states that Chinese names have been accepted since January 2010 and Cyrillic names in seven languages since February 2011. The practices for some, but not all, of the Latin languages are registered with IANA.
Paul Twomey[TWOMEY03A]在2003年的一封信中提到[G1]。注册处有一个IDN语言列表[PIRIDN],其中一些语言是用拉丁语书写的,还有中文和韩语。一个问题页面[PIRFAQ]指出,自2010年1月以来,中文名称已被接受,而自2011年2月以来,西里尔文名称已被七种语言接受。一些(但不是全部)拉丁语的实践已在IANA注册。
A Chinese language policy form on the Public Interest Registry (PIR) web site says that the ZH-CN and ZH-TW IDNs use the corresponding ccTLD tables from IANA, and check boxes say that Variant Registration Polices and Variant Management Policies are applicable but don't say what those policies are.
公共利益注册中心(PIR)网站上的中文政策表显示,ZH-CN和ZH-TW IDN使用IANA中相应的ccTLD表,复选框显示变体注册政策和变体管理政策适用,但没有说明这些政策是什么。
Private correspondence [CHANDIWALA12] describes not-yet-public rules for variants in Chinese and Cyrillic in .ORG that restrict the number of variants that a registration can have.
私人通信[CHANDIWALA12]描述了尚未公开的中文和西里尔文变体规则,这些规则限制了注册可以拥有的变体数量。
The Korean language policy form says that it uses the KRNIC table for Korean from IANA and that there are no variants.
朝鲜语政策表表示,它使用IANA的朝鲜语KRNIC表,并且没有变体。
The .POST TLD appears to have no registrations at all yet.
.POST TLD似乎还没有注册。
The .PRO TLD has no IDNs and no rules or practices for them.
.PRO TLD没有IDN,也没有针对它们的规则或实践。
The zone has many IDNs. It is probably operating according to a 2004 letter from Paul Twomey [TWOMEY04A] to Neustar, which did not mention specific TLDs. Its policy page [TELPOLICY] has links to IDN practices for 17 languages, all but one of which are registered with IANA. None of the Latin scripts do bundling or blocking. The Japanese practices say that variants are blocked. The Chinese practices document says:
该区域有许多IDN。它可能是根据2004年Paul Twomey[TWOMEY04A]给Neustar的一封信运营的,信中没有提到具体的TLD。其政策页面[TELPOLICY]有17种语言的IDN实践链接,除一种语言外,其他所有语言都在IANA注册。没有一个拉丁语脚本进行捆绑或阻塞。日本的实践表明,变种是被阻止的。中国实践文件说:
Therefore, in addition to the blocking mechanism, bundling is also implemented for the Chinese language IDNs. When registering a Chinese language IDN (primary domain name) up to two additional variant domain names will be automatically registered. The first variant will consist entirely of simplified Chinese characters that correspond to those comprising the primary domain name. The second variant will consist exclusively of traditional Chinese characters that correspond to those comprising the primary domain name.
因此,除了阻塞机制之外,还为中文IDN实现捆绑。注册中文IDN(主域名)时,最多会自动注册另外两个变体域名。第一个变体将完全由简体中文字符组成,这些简体中文字符与构成主域名的简体中文字符相对应。第二种变体将完全由繁体中文字符组成,这些字符与构成主要域名的字符相对应。
The primary domain name together with the requested variants constitutes a bundle on which all operations are atomic. For example, if the registrant adds a name server to the primary domain name, all names in the bundle will be associated with that new name server.
主域名和请求的变体构成一个包,所有操作都是原子的。例如,如果注册人向主域名添加名称服务器,则捆绑包中的所有名称都将与该新名称服务器关联。
The zone has no DNAME records, so the second paragraph strongly suggests parallel NS.
该区域没有DNAME记录,因此第二段强烈建议使用平行NS。
The .TEL TLD, intended as an online directory, does not allow registrants to enter arbitrary Resource Records (RRs) in the zone. Nearly all names have NS records pointing to Telnic's own name servers. The A records all point to Telnic's own web server that shows directory information. NAPTR records provide telephone numbers of registrants if available. Users can only directly provision MX records. Currently, there are 16 domains, none of which are IDNs, that point to random other name servers and mostly appear to be parked.
.TEL TLD作为在线目录,不允许注册者在区域中输入任意资源记录(RRs)。几乎所有名称都有指向Telnic自己的名称服务器的NS记录。A记录全部指向Telnic自己的web服务器,该服务器显示目录信息。NAPTR记录提供注册人的电话号码(如有)。用户只能直接提供MX记录。目前,共有16个域,其中没有一个是IDN,指向随机的其他名称服务器,并且大部分似乎已停止。
The .TRAVEL TLD has no IDNs and no rules or practices for them.
TRAVEL TLD没有IDN,也没有相关的规则或实践。
The .XXX TLD has no IDNs and no rules or practices for them.
.XXX TLD没有IDN,也没有相关的规则或实践。
Some ccTLDs publish their IDN policies. This section is a non-exhaustive sampling of some of those policies. Note that few ccTLDs make their zone files available, so the authors could not validate the policies by looking in the zone files.
某些CCTLD发布其IDN策略。本节是其中一些政策的非详尽抽样。请注意,很少有CCTLD提供其区域文件,因此作者无法通过查看区域文件来验证策略。
The .BG TLD (for Bulgaria) publishes a policy page [BGPOLICY]. It has published an IDN table for the Bulgarian and Russian languages in [IANAIDN]. The policy does not mention variants.
.BG TLD(保加利亚)发布一个策略页面[BGPOLICY]。它在[IANAIDN]中发布了保加利亚语和俄语的IDN表。该政策没有提到变体。
The .BR TLD (for Brazil) publishes a policy page [BRPOLICY]. It has published an IDN table for the Portuguese language in [IANAIDN]. Although the IDN table does not describe variants, the policy page says that bundles consist of names that are the same disregarding accents on vowels, cedillas on letter "c", and inserted or deleted hyphens. Only the registrant of a name in a bundle can register other names from the same bundle.
.BR TLD(适用于巴西)发布策略页面[BRPOLICY]。它在[IANAIDN]中发布了葡萄牙语IDN表。虽然IDN表没有描述变体,但政策页面说,捆绑包由相同的名称组成,这些名称不考虑元音上的重音,字母“c”上的塞迪拉,以及插入或删除的连字符。只有捆绑包中某个名称的注册人才能注册同一捆绑包中的其他名称。
The .CL TLD (for Chile) publishes a policy page [CLPOLICY]. It has published an IDN table for the Latin script in [IANAIDN]. The policy says that variants are not considered for registration.
.CL TLD(适用于智利)发布了一个策略页面[CLPOLICY]。它已在[IANAIDN]中发布了拉丁文字的IDN表。该政策规定,不考虑注册变体。
The .CN TLD (for China) publishes its policy as [RFC4713]. It has published an IDN table for the Chinese language in [IANAIDN]. The policy says that variants are "added into the zone file", presumably as NS records.
CN TLD(中国)将其政策发布为[RFC4713]。它在[IANAIDN]中发布了中文IDN表。该政策规定变体“添加到区域文件”,可能作为NS记录。
The .ES TLD (for Spain) publishes an IDN Area page [ESIDN]. It allows ten accented vowels, U+00E7 ("c with cedilla"), U+00F1 ("n with tilde"), and the Catalan "ela geminada" written as two l's separated by a U+00B7 ("middle dot"). There are no published IDN tables, and there appears to be no variant policy.
.ES TLD(用于西班牙)发布IDN区域页面[ESIDN]。它允许十个重音元音,U+00E7(“c带cedilla”)、U+00F1(“n带tilde”)和加泰罗尼亚语“ela geminada”,写为两个l,由U+00B7(“中间点”)分隔。没有已发布的IDN表,并且似乎没有变体策略。
The .EU TLD (for Europe) publishes a policy page [EUPOLICY]. It has published IDN tables for three scripts in [IANAIDN]. There appears to be no variant policy.
.EU TLD(适用于欧洲)发布了一个政策页面[EUPOLICY]。它在[IANAIDN]中发布了三个脚本的IDN表。似乎没有不同的政策。
The .GR TLD (for Greece) publishes a policy page [GRPOLICY] and an FAQ [GRFAQ]. The policy says that all variants of a name under .GR are assigned to the domain owner, with the zone pointing the NS records of all the variants to the name server of the "main form" of the registered name. The FAQ says that domain names in Greek characters are inserted in the zone using their non-punctuated form in Punycode and that the punctuated form is associated with the non-punctuated with a DNAME record. It does not publish IDN tables in [IANAIDN].
.GR TLD(希腊)发布了一个政策页面[GRPOLICY]和一个常见问题[GRFAQ]。该策略表示.GR下名称的所有变体都分配给域所有者,区域将所有变体的NS记录指向注册名称的“主形式”名称服务器。常见问题解答说,希腊字符域名是使用Punycode中的非标点形式插入区域的,标点形式与非标点形式的DNAME记录相关联。它不会在[IANAIDN]中发布IDN表。
The .IL TLD (for Israel) publishes a policy page [ILPOLICY]. It has published an IDN table for the Hebrew language in [IANAIDN]. There is no variant policy.
.IL TLD(以色列)发布了一个政策页面[ILPOLICY]。它在[IANAIDN]中发布了希伯来语IDN表。没有不同的政策。
The .IR TLD (for Iran) publishes a policy page [IRPOLICY]. It has published an IDN table for the Persian language in [IANAIDN]. The IDN table says that it will block registration of variants. However, the policy document says that no IDNs can be registered in .IR.
.IR TLD(针对伊朗)发布了一个政策页面[IRPOLICY]。它在[IANAIDN]中发布了波斯语的IDN表。IDN表表示它将阻止变体的注册。但是,该政策文件指出,不能在.IR中注册IDN。
The .JP TLD (for Japan) publishes a policy page [JPPOLICY]. It has published an IDN table for the Japanese language in [IANAIDN]. Each code point in that table defines no variants, which means there are no variants in registration or resolution.
.JP TLD(适用于日本)发布了一个政策页面[JPPOLICY]。它在[IANAIDN]中发布了日语IDN表。该表中的每个代码点都没有定义变量,这意味着在注册或解析中没有变量。
The .KR TLD (for South Korea) appears to only publish its policy as an IDN table for the Korean language in [IANAIDN]. The policy in that table does not discuss variants.
.KR TLD(适用于韩国)似乎只在[IANAIDN]中将其政策发布为朝鲜语的IDN表。该表中的策略不讨论变体。
The .MY TLD (for Malaysia) appears to only publish its policy as an IDN table for the Jawi language in [IANAIDN]; however, IANA lists that as a table for "Malay (macrolanguage)". The policy in that table does not discuss variants.
.MY TLD(马来西亚)似乎只将其政策发布为[IANAIDN]中Jawi语言的IDN表;然而,IANA将其列为“马来语(宏语言)”的表格。该表中的策略不讨论变体。
The .NZ TLD (for New Zealand) publishes a policy page [NZPOLICY]. It has published IDN tables for the Latin script in [IANAIDN]. The policy does not discuss variants.
.NZ TLD(适用于新西兰)发布了一个政策页面[NZPOLICY]。它在[IANAIDN]中发布了拉丁文字的IDN表。该政策不讨论变体。
The .PL TLD (for Poland) publishes a policy page [PLPOLICY]. It has published IDN tables for numerous European languages in [IANAIDN]. The policy says that it will block registration of "look-alike" variants.
PL TLD(用于波兰)发布一个策略页面[PLPOLICY]。它在[IANAIDN]中发布了多种欧洲语言的IDN表。该政策说,它将阻止注册“相似”变体。
The .RS TLD (for Serbia) publishes a policy page [RSPOLICY]. It has published IDN tables for the Serbian language, and the Latin script, in [IANAIDN]. The policy does not discuss variants.
.RS TLD(用于塞尔维亚)发布一个策略页面[RSPOLICY]。它以[IANAIDN]出版了塞尔维亚语和拉丁语的IDN表格。该政策不讨论变体。
The .RU TLD (for Russia) appears to only publish its policy as an IDN table for the Russian language in [IANAIDN]. The policy in that table does not discuss variants.
.RU TLD(代表俄罗斯)似乎只将其政策发布为[IANAIDN]中俄语的IDN表。该表中的策略不讨论变体。
The .SA TLD (for Saudi Arabia) publishes a policy page [SAPOLICY]. It has published an IDN table for the Arabic language in [IANAIDN]. The policy permits the registration of variants, but it is not clear whether others can register names with variants if the owner of a name has not registered them.
.SA TLD(沙特阿拉伯)发布了一个政策页面[SAPOLICY]。它在[IANAIDN]中发布了阿拉伯语的IDN表。该政策允许注册变体,但不清楚如果名称所有者未注册变体,其他人是否可以使用变体注册名称。
The .SE TLD (for Sweden) publishes a policy page [SEPOLICY]. It has published IDN tables for the Swedish and Yiddish languages, and the Latin script, in [IANAIDN]. The policy does not discuss variants.
.SE TLD(瑞典)发布了一个政策页面[SEPOLICY]。它在[IANAIDN]中发布了瑞典语和意第绪语以及拉丁语的IDN表格。该政策不讨论变体。
The .TW TLD (for Taiwan) appears to only publish its policy as an IDN table for the Chinese language in [IANAIDN]. The policy in that table does not discuss variants.
.TW TLD(适用于台湾)似乎只在[IANAIDN]中以中文IDN表的形式发布其政策。该表中的策略不讨论变体。
The .UA TLD (for Ukraine) publishes a policy page [UAPOLICY]. It has published an IDN table for the Cyrillic script in [IANAIDN]. The policy does not discuss variants.
.UA TLD(乌克兰)发布政策页面[UAPOLICY]。它在[IANAIDN]中发布了西里尔文字的IDN表。该政策不讨论变体。
The .VE TLD (for Venezuela) appears to only publish its policy as an IDN table for the Spanish language in [IANAIDN]. The policy in that table does not discuss variants.
.VE TLD(委内瑞拉)似乎只在[IANAIDN]中以西班牙语IDN表的形式发布其政策。该表中的策略不讨论变体。
The .XN--90A3AC TLD (for Serbia) (U+0441 U+0440 U+0431) publishes a policy page [RSIDNPOLICY]. It has published IDN tables for the Cyrillic script in [IANAIDN]. The policy does not discuss variants.
.XN--90A3AC TLD(塞尔维亚)(U+0441 U+0440 U+0431)发布一个策略页面[RSIDNPOLICY]。它在[IANAIDN]中发布了西里尔文字的IDN表。该政策不讨论变体。
The .XN--MGBERP4A5D4AR TLD (for Saudi Arabia) (U+0627 U+0644 U+0633 U+0639 U+0648 U+062F U+064A U+0629) appears to only publish its policy as an IDN table for the Arabic script in [IANAIDN]. The policy permits the registration of variants, but it is not clear whether others can register names with variants if the owner of a name has not registered them.
.XN--MGBERP4A5D4AR TLD(适用于沙特阿拉伯)(U+0627 U+0644 U+0633 U+0639 U+0648 U+062F U+064A U+0629)似乎仅将其策略作为[IANAIDN]中阿拉伯语脚本的IDN表发布。该政策允许注册变体,但不清楚如果名称所有者未注册变体,其他人是否可以使用变体注册名称。
Many people contributed to this document, particularly Nacho Amadoz, Marc Blanchet, Michelle Coon, Jordi Iparraguirre, Frederico A. C. Neves, Vaggelis Segredakis, Doron Shikmoni, Andrew Sullivan, Dennis Tan, and Joseph Yee.
许多人对此文件做出了贡献,特别是纳乔·阿马多兹、马克·布兰切特、米歇尔·库恩、乔迪·伊帕拉圭尔、弗雷德里科·内维斯、瓦杰利斯·塞格雷达基斯、多伦·什克莫尼、安德鲁·沙利文、丹尼斯·谭和约瑟夫·叶。
There are many potential security considerations for various methods of dealing with IDN variants. However, this document is only a catalog of current variant policies and does not address whether they are good or bad ideas from a security standpoint. The documents cited in the Terminology section have a little discussion of security considerations for IDN variants.
对于处理IDN变体的各种方法,有许多潜在的安全考虑因素。但是,本文档只是当前各种策略的目录,并没有从安全角度说明它们是好主意还是坏主意。术语部分引用的文档对IDN变体的安全注意事项进行了一些讨论。
[ASIACJK] Dot.Asia Organisation, ".ASIA CJK (Chinese Japanese Korean) IDN Policies", May 2011, <http://dot.asia/policies/ DotAsia-CJK-IDN-Policies-COMPLETE--2011-05-04.pdf>.
[ASIACJK]Dot.亚洲组织,“亚洲CJK(中国-日本-韩国)IDN政策”,2011年5月<http://dot.asia/policies/ DotAsia CJK IDN政策完成--2011-05-04.pdf>。
[BGPOLICY] Register.BG, "Terms and Conditions for Domain Name Registration and Support in the .BG Zone and the Sub-Zones", August 2011, <https://www.register.bg/user/ static/rules/en/index.html>.
[BGPOLICY]Register.BG.“.BG区域和子区域域名注册和支持的条款和条件”,2011年8月<https://www.register.bg/user/ static/rules/en/index.html>。
[BRPOLICY] Registro.br, "Dominios .br", September 2011, <http://registro.br/dominio/regras.html>.
[BRPOLICY]Registro.br,“Dominios.br”,2011年9月<http://registro.br/dominio/regras.html>.
[CHANDIWALA12] Chandiwala, S., "Letter from Sadik Chandiwala to John Levine", December 2012.
[CHANDIWALA12]Chandiwala,S.,“Sadik Chandiwala给John Levine的信”,2012年12月。
[CLPOLICY] NIC Chile, "Syntax Rules for Domain Names under .CL", August 2005, <http://www.nic.cl/CL-IDN-policy.html>.
[CLPOLICY]NIC Chile,“.CL下域名的语法规则”,2005年8月<http://www.nic.cl/CL-IDN-policy.html>.
[ESIDN] Red.es, "IDN area", <http://www.dominios.es/dominios/ en/todo-lo-que-necesitas-saber/valores-anadidos/ area-idn>.
[ESIDN]Red.es,“IDN区域”<http://www.dominios.es/dominios/ en/todo lo que necesitas saber/valores anadidos/area idn>。
[EUPOLICY] EURid, ".eu Domain Name Registration Terms and Conditions", <http://link.eurid.eu/trm-con>.
[EUPOLICY]EURid,“.eu域名注册条款和条件”<http://link.eurid.eu/trm-con>.
[G1] ICANN, "Guidelines for the Implementation of Internationalized Domain Names, Version 1.0", <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/ idn-guidelines-20jun03-en.htm>.
[G1]ICANN,“国际化域名实施指南,1.0版”<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/ idn-guidelines-20jun03-en.htm>。
[G3] ICANN, "Guidelines for the Implementation of Internationalized Domain Names, Version 3.0", <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/ idn-guidelines-02sep11-en.htm>.
[G3]ICANN,“国际化域名实施指南,3.0版”<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/ idn-guidelines-02sep11-en.htm>。
[GRFAQ] Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas, "Frequently Asked Questions regarding [.gr] Domain Name registrations", <https://grweb.ics.forth.gr/faq.jsp?lang=en>.
[GRFAQ]研究与技术基金会——HELLAS,“关于[GR]域名注册的常见问题”,<https://grweb.ics.forth.gr/faq.jsp?lang=en>.
[GRPOLICY] Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas, "Regulation on Management and Assignment of [.gr] Domain Names", 2011, <https://grweb.ics.forth.gr/tomcat_docs/ AP592_012_2011_.pdf>.
《研究与技术基础》,《HELLAS,“管理和转让[GR]域名管理条例”,2011,<https://grweb.ics.forth.gr/tomcat_docs/ AP592\u 012\u 2011\u.pdf>。
[IANAIDN] IANA, "Repository of IDN Practices", <http://www.iana.org/domains/idn-tables>.
[IANAIDN]IANA,“IDN实践知识库”<http://www.iana.org/domains/idn-tables>.
[ICANNAGREE] ICANN, "ICANN Registry Agreements", <http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries>.
[ICANNAGREE]ICANN,“ICANN注册协议”<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries>.
[ICANNBIZ9] ICANN, "Appendix 9 of ICANN .BIZ Registry Agreement", December 2006, <http://www.icann.org/en/about/ agreements/registries/biz/appendix-09-08dec06-en.htm>.
[ICANNBIZ9]ICANN,“ICANN.BIZ注册协议附录9”,2006年12月<http://www.icann.org/en/about/ 协议/注册处/biz/appendix-09-08dec06-en.htm>。
[ICANNCATS] ICANN, "Appendix S of ICANN .CAT Registry Agreement", March 2006, <http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/ registries/cat/cat-appendixs-22mar06-en.htm>.
[ICANNCATS]ICANN,“ICANN.CAT注册协议附录S”,2006年3月<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/ registries/cat/cat-appendix-22mar06-en.htm>。
[ICANNINFO9] ICANN, "Appendix 9 of ICANN .INFO Registry Agreement", December 2006, <http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/ info/appendix-09-08dec06.htm>.
[ICANNINFO9]ICANN,“ICANN.INFO注册协议附录9”,2006年12月<http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/ info/appendix-09-08dec06.htm>。
[ICANNMOBIS] ICANN, "Appendix S of ICANN .MOBI Registry Agreement", November 2005, <http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/ registries/mobi/mobi-appendixs-23nov05-en.htm>.
[ICANNOMBIS]ICANN,“ICANN.MOBI注册协议附录S”,2005年11月<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/ registries/mobi/mobi-appendix-23nov05-en.htm>。
[ILPOLICY] Israel Internet Association (ISOC-IL), "Rules for the Allocation of Domain Names Under the Israel Country Code Top Level Domain ("IL ")", August 2010, <http://www.isoc.org.il/domains/il-domain-rules.html>.
[ILPOLICY]以色列互联网协会(ISOC-IL),“以色列国家代码顶级域名(“IL”)下的域名分配规则”,2010年8月<http://www.isoc.org.il/domains/il-domain-rules.html>.
[INFOTABLES] Afilias, "Internationalized Domain Names", <http://info.info/information/ internationalized-domain-names>.
[INFOTABLES]Afilias,“国际化域名”<http://info.info/information/ 国际化域名>。
[IRPOLICY] IPM/IRNIC, "Internationalized Domain Names in .IR", <http://www.nic.ir/Internationalized_Domain_Names>.
[IRPOLICY]IPM/IRNIC,“在.IR中的国际化域名”<http://www.nic.ir/Internationalized_Domain_Names>.
[JPPOLICY] JPRS, "Technology bylaws regarding generic domain name registration JP", <http://jprs.jp/doc/rule/saisoku-1-wideusejp.html>.
[JPPOLICY]JPRS,“关于通用域名注册的技术细则JP”<http://jprs.jp/doc/rule/saisoku-1-wideusejp.html>.
[LEWIS03] Lewis, R., "Letter from Russell Lewis to Paul Twomey", October 2003, <http://www.icann.org/en/news/ correspondence/lewis-to-twomey-13oct03-en.htm>.
[LEWIS03]Lewis,R.,“Russell Lewis给Paul Twomey的信”,2003年10月<http://www.icann.org/en/news/ 通信/lewis-to-twomey-13oct03-en.htm>。
[MUSEUMPOLICY] MuseDoma, "Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) in .museum - Policies and terms of use", January 2009, <http://about.museum/idn/idnpolicy.html>.
[MUSEUMPOLICY]MuseDoma,“博物馆中的国际化域名(IDN)-政策和使用条款”,2009年1月<http://about.museum/idn/idnpolicy.html>.
[NZPOLICY] .nz Registry Services, "Internationalised Domain Names (IDN)", <http://nzrs.net.nz/dns/idn>.
[NZPOLICY].nz注册服务,“国际化域名(IDN)”<http://nzrs.net.nz/dns/idn>.
[PIRFAQ] Public Interest Registry, "Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Questions", <http://www.pir.org/why/global/idn>.
[PIRFAQ]公共利益注册,“国际化域名(IDN)问题”<http://www.pir.org/why/global/idn>.
[PIRIDN] Public Interest Registry, "Go Global", <http://www.pir.org/why/global>.
[PIRIDN]公共利益登记处,“走向全球”<http://www.pir.org/why/global>.
[PLPOLICY] NASK (PL-TLD), "Registering Internationalized Domain Names under .PL", July 2007, <http://www.dns.pl/IDN/idn-registration-policy.txt>.
[PLPOLICY]NASK(PL-TLD),“在.PL下注册国际化域名”,2007年7月<http://www.dns.pl/IDN/idn-registration-policy.txt>.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC1035]Mockapetris,P.,“域名-实现和规范”,STD 13,RFC 1035,1987年11月。
[RFC3743] Konishi, K., Huang, K., Qian, H., and Y. Ko, "Joint Engineering Team (JET) Guidelines for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Registration and Administration for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean", RFC 3743, April 2004.
[RFC3743]Konishi,K.,Huang,K.,Qian,H.,和Y.Ko,“中国,日本和韩国的国际域名(IDN)注册和管理联合工程团队(JET)指南”,RFC 37432004年4月。
[RFC4713] Lee, X., Mao, W., Chen, E., Hsu, N., and J. Klensin, "Registration and Administration Recommendations for Chinese Domain Names", RFC 4713, October 2006.
[RFC4713]Lee,X.,Mao,W.,Chen,E.,Hsu,N.,和J.Klensin,“中文域名的注册和管理建议”,RFC 4713,2006年10月。
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework", RFC 5890, August 2010.
[RFC5890]Klensin,J.,“应用程序的国际化域名(IDNA):定义和文档框架”,RFC 58902010年8月。
[RFC6672] Rose, S. and W. Wijngaards, "DNAME Redirection in the DNS", RFC 6672, June 2012.
[RFC6672]Rose,S.和W.Wijngaards,“DNS中的DNAME重定向”,RFC 66722012年6月。
[RSIDNPOLICY] RNIDS, "Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) in xn--90a3ac ccTLD", October 2011, <http://www.rnids.rs/ data/DOKUMENTI/idn-srb-policy-termsofuse-v1.4-eng.pdf>.
[RSIDNPOLICY]RNIDS,“xn中的国际化域名(IDN)——90a3ac ccTLD”,2011年10月<http://www.rnids.rs/ data/DOKUMENTI/idn-srb-policy-termsofuse-v1.4-eng.pdf>。
[RSPOLICY] RNIDS, "General Terms And Conditions For Registration of .rs Domain Names", June 2009, <http://www.rnids.rs/ data/DOKUMENTI/Opsti%20akti/list0029_en.pdf>.
[RSPOLICY]RNIDS,“注册.rs域名的一般条款和条件”,2009年6月<http://www.rnids.rs/ data/DOKUMENTI/Opsti%20akti/list0029\u en.pdf>。
[SAPOLICY] Saudi Network Information Center, "Saudi Domain Name Registration Regulation", March 2011, <http://nic.sa/docs/ Saudi_Domain_Name_Registration_Regulation_V3.0_EN.pdf>.
[SAPOLICY]沙特网络信息中心,《沙特域名注册条例》,2011年3月<http://nic.sa/docs/ 沙特(沙特)域名(沙特)注册(沙特)法规(沙特)V3.0(沙特)EN.pdf>。
[SEPOLICY] .SE (The Internet Infrastructure Foundation), "Domain names (IDN)", <https://www.iis.se/english/register/idn/>.
[SEPOLICY].SE(互联网基础设施基金会),“域名(IDN)”<https://www.iis.se/english/register/idn/>.
[TELPOLICY] Telnic, ".TEL Policies", <http://www.telnic.org/policies.html>.
[TELPOLICY]Telnic,“.TEL策略”<http://www.telnic.org/policies.html>.
[TURNER03] Turner, B., "Letter from Ben Turner to Paul Twomey", November 2003, <http://www.icann.org/en/news/ correspondence/turner-to-twomey-17nov03-en.htm>.
[TURNER03]Turner,B.,“Ben Turner给Paul Twomey的信”,2003年11月<http://www.icann.org/en/news/ 通信/turner-to-twomey-17nov03-en.htm>。
[TWOMEY03] Twomey, P., "Letter from Paul Twomey to Ram Mohan", August 2003, <http://www.icann.org/en/news/ correspondence/twomey-to-mohan-19aug03-en.htm>.
[TWOMEY03]Twomey,P.,“Paul Twomey给Ram Mohan的信”,2003年8月<http://www.icann.org/en/news/ 通信/twomey-to-mohan-19aug03-en.htm>。
[TWOMEY03A] Twomey, P., "Letter from Paul Twomey to Edward Viltz", October 2003, <http://www.icann.org/en/news/ correspondence/twomey-to-viltz-21oct03-en.htm>.
[TWOMEY03A]Twomey,P.,“Paul Twomey给Edward Viltz的信”,2003年10月<http://www.icann.org/en/news/ 通信/twomey-to-viltz-21oct03-en.htm>。
[TWOMEY04] Twomey, P., "Letter from Paul Twomey to Cary Karp", January 2004, <http://www.icann.org/en/news/ correspondence/twomey-to-karp-20jan04-en.htm>.
[TWOMEY04]Twomey,P.,“Paul Twomey给Cary Karp的信”,2004年1月<http://www.icann.org/en/news/ 通信/twomey-to-karp-20jan04-en.htm>。
[TWOMEY04A] Twomey, P., "Letter from Paul Twomey to Richard Tindal", July 2004, <http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/ twomey-to-tindal-29jul04.pdf>.
[TWOMEY04A]Twomey,P.,“Paul Twomey给Richard Tindal的信”,2004年7月<http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/ twomey-to-tindal-29jul04.pdf>。
[UAPOLICY] UA ccTLD, "Registration Schedule of IDN-domains", <http://www.hostmaster.ua/idn/>.
[UAPOLICY]UA ccTLD,“IDN域的注册时间表”<http://www.hostmaster.ua/idn/>.
[VIPREPORT] ICANN, "A Study of Issues Related to the Management of IDN Variant TLDs (Integrated Issues Report)", <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/ idn-vip-integrated-issues-final-clean-20feb12-en.pdf>.
[VIPREPORT]ICANN,“IDN变体TLD管理相关问题研究(综合问题报告)”<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/ idn-vip-integrated-issues-final-clean-20feb12-en.pdf>。
[VRSNADDL] Verisign, "Additional Logic", <http://www.verisigninc.com/en_US/products-and-services/ domain-name-services/domain-information-center/ idn-code-points/additional-logic/index.xhtml>.
[VRSNADDL]Verisign,“附加逻辑”<http://www.verisigninc.com/en_US/products-and-services/ 域名服务/域信息中心/idn代码点/附加逻辑/index.xhtml>。
[VRSNCHAR] Verisign, "Character Variants", <http://www.verisigninc.com/en_US/products-and-services/ domain-name-services/domain-information-center/ idn-resources/character-variants/index.xhtml>.
[VRSNCHAR]Verisign,“字符变体”<http://www.verisigninc.com/en_US/products-and-services/ 域名服务/domain information center/idn resources/character variants/index.xhtml>。
[VRSNLANG] Verisign, "Scripts and Languages", <http://www.verisigninc.com/en_US/products-and-services/ domain-name-services/domain-information-center/ idn-resources/scripts-languages/index.xhtml>.
[VRSNLANG]Verisign,“脚本和语言”<http://www.verisigninc.com/en_US/products-and-services/ 域名服务/domain information center/idn resources/scripts languages/index.xhtml>。
[VRSNRULES] Verisign, "Registration Rules", <http://www.verisigninc.com/en_US/products-and-services/ domain-name-services/domain-information-center/ idn-code-points/registration-rules/index.xhtml>.
[VRSNRULES]Verisign,“注册规则”<http://www.verisigninc.com/en_US/products-and-services/ 域名服务/域信息中心/idn代码点/注册规则/index.xhtml>。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
John Levine Taughannock Networks
约翰·莱文·塔甘诺克网络公司
EMail: standards@taugh.com
EMail: standards@taugh.com
Paul Hoffman VPN Consortium
保罗·霍夫曼VPN联盟
EMail: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org
EMail: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org