Re: IDN administrative bundling

After re-reading your message I both agree and disagree depending on the domain which you consider your
point of reference.

If your point of reference is a domain with variant names then B(n) still holds for all subordinate names,
however the domain's variant labels also fit in your definition of B(w).

In this case one can change their point of reference to the parent domain, however this is somewhat
unnatural as one does not necessarily have administrative control the parent domain.

I'm not saying you are wrong, there are two distinct concepts as you describe but I believe your definitions
could use some tightening. I agree the term bundling should probably not be used to describe the latter
given its current usage.

James

On 31/03/2012, at 7:33 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs <at> crankycanuck.ca> wrote:

> No, I don't. Delegations from the parent are names in a domain. They're case B(n) in what I wrote. 
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan 
> Please excuse my clumsy thumbs. 
> 
> On 2012-03-31, at 7:11, James Mitchell <james.mitchell <at> ausregistry.com.au> wrote:
> 
>> You forget where the zone name also has variant names delegated from its parent zone.
>> 
>> On 31/03/2012, at 10:57 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs <at> anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 02:24:24PM +0000, Gould, James wrote:
>>> 
>>>> objects.  The concept of bundling could apply to domain names in a single
>>>> TLD, domain names across TLD's, and objects of different kinds within or
>>>> across TLD's.  
>>> 
>>> I don't care what we call them, but I do not see how anyone can claim
>>> that "bundling" in the same sense can cross domain (I'm almost tempted
>>> to say "zone") boundaries and also be the narrow meaning often
>>> intended by the word.
>>> 
>>> Bundling(n) [n for narrow] is a case where, within the same domain,
>>> two subordinate labels are somehow treated as basically linked in some
>>> way.  This is the meaning of bundling (and one of the meanings of
>>> "variant") that has most traditionally been seen in the RFCs. The
>>> links may be purely administrative, by which we mean that the
>>> administrative details of the name are required to be the same; or
>>> they may be technically tighter, such as a requirement for mirroring
>>> (either via aliasing or administrative fiat of parallel delegation).
>>> An example of this case is example.com and éxample.com: these are both
>>> names in the same domain (and zone).
>>> 
>>> Bundling(w) [w for wide], which I would prefer to call "domain
>>> linking" or something like that, is where two names in different parts
>>> of the DNS namespace are somehow treated in ways that link them
>>> together.  As above, these links may be stronger or weaker, but the
>>> key is that they be in different domains.  If example.com and
>>> example.net are somehow linked together, for instance, it would be a
>>> case of this.
>>> 
>>> best,
>>> 
>>> A
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Andrew Sullivan
>>> ajs <at> anvilwalrusden.com
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> provreg mailing list
>>> provreg <at> ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
provreg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg