IDNs - The Internet Protocol Journal, Volume 11, No. 1

Internationalizing the Domain Name System

by Geoff Huston, APNIC

Considering the global reach of the Internet, internationalizing the network sounds like a tautology. Surely the Internet is already truly "international," isn't it? The Internet reaches around the globe to every country, doesn't it? And no matter where you may travel these days, an Internet café is just around the corner. How much more "international" can you get?

But maybe I'm just being too parochial here when I call it a tautology. I use a dialect of the English language, and all the characters I need are contained in the Western Latin character set. Therefore, I avoid using a non-English language on the Internet; the only language I use on the Internet is English, and all the characters I need are encompassed in the ASCII character set. If I tried to use the Internet with a language that has a non-Latin character set and a different script, my experience would probably be different—and acutely frustrating. If my native language used a different script and a different text flow than English, I would probably give the Internet an extremely low score for ease of use. It is not as simple as managing glyph sets to represent the characters of the language; although it is relatively easy to present pictures of characters in a variety of fonts and scripts, using them in an intuitive and natural way in the context of the Internet becomes more challenging.

Mostly what is needed is good localization, or adapting the local computing environment to suit local linguistic needs. This environment may include support for additional character sets and additional language scripts, and perhaps altering the direction of text flow, or even the entire layout of the information.

For example, Japanese is traditionally written in a format called Tategaki. In this format, the text flows in columns going from top to bottom, with columns ordered from right to left. Modern Japanese also uses another writing format, called Yokogaki. This writing format is identical to that of European languages such as English, where the text flows from left to right in successive rows from top to bottom.

Today, the left-to-right direction is dominant in Japanese Kana, Chinese characters, and Korean Hangul for horizontal writing. This change is due partly to the influence of English, and partly to the increased use of computerized typesetting and word-processing software, most of which does not directly support right-to-left layout of East Asian languages. It would appear that even Yokogaki is an outcome of the lack of capability of IT systems to correctly cope with localization. [1]

One topic, however, does not appear to have a compellingly obvious localization solution in this multilingual environment: the Domain Name System (DNS). The subtle difference here is that the DNS is the "glue" that binds all users' language symbols together, and performing localized adaptations to suit local language use needs is not enough. The DNS spans the entire network, so what works for me in the DNS must also work for you. What we need is a means to allow the use of all of these language symbols within the same system, or internationalization.

The DNS is the most prevalent means of initiating a network transaction, whether it is a BitTorrent session, the Web, e-mail, or any other form of network activity. But the DNS name string is not just an arbitrary string of characters. What you find in the DNS is most often a sequence of words or their abbreviations, and the words are generally English words, using characters drawn from a subset of the Latin character set. Perhaps unsurprisingly, some implementations of the DNS also assume that all DNS names must be constructed only from this ASCII character set, and these implementations are incapable of supporting a larger character repertoire. If you want to use a larger character set in order to represent various diacritics, such as acute and grave symbols, umlauts and similar marks, then the deployed DNS can be resistant to this use, and may provide incorrect responses to queries that include such characters. And if you want to use words drawn from languages that do not use the western script for their characters, such as Japanese or Thai, for example, then the DNS is highly resistant to this form of multilingual use.

Latin and Roman Alphabets

The default Latin alphabet is the Roman [2] alphabet, supplemented with G, J, U, W, Y, Z, and lowercase variants. Additional letters may be formed:

  • As ligatures, as W was from VV, for example Æ (ash) from AE, oethel Å’ from OE, eszett ß from fz (long s + z), engma Å‹ from NG, ou È¢ from OU, Ñ from NN, or ä from ae
  • By diacritics, such as Å, ÄŒ, and Ų
  • As digraphs, such as ï¬� and fl
  • By modification, as J was from I, G from C, Ø from O, eth Ð from D, yogh Èœ from G, or schwa É™ from E
  • By borrowing from another alphabet entirely, as thorn þ and wynn Ç· were from Futhark (Runic)

Over the years we have done a reasonable job of at least displaying non-Latin-based scripts within many applications, and although at times it appears to represent a less-than-reasonable compromise, it is possible to enter non-Latin characters on computer keyboards. So it appears to be possible to customise a local computing environment to use a language other than English in a relatively natural way.

But what happens when we extend the scope to consider multilingual support in the wider world of the Internet?

Again the overall story is not all that bad. We can use non-Latin character scripts in e-mail, in all kinds of Web documents, and in a wide variety of network applications. We can tag content with a language context to allow display of the content in the correct language using the appropriate character sets and presentation glyphs. However, until recently, one area continued to stick steadfastly to its ASCII roots: the DNS. This article addresses DNS internationalization, or Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs).

What do we mean when we talk of 'internationalizing the DNS'? It refers to an environment where English, and the Latin character set, is just one of many languages and scripts in use, and where a communication is initiated in one locale and then the language and presentation are preserved wherever the communication is received.


The following terms are used in this article:


A language uses characters drawn from a collection of scripts.


A script is a collection of characters that are related in their use by a language.


A character is a unit of a script.


The presentation of a character within the style of a font is called a glyph.


A font is a collection of glyphs encompassing a script character set that share a consistent presentation style.

Multiple languages can use a common script, and any locale or country may use many languages, reflecting the diversity of its population and the evolution of local dialects within communities.

It is also useful to remember the distinction between internationalization and localization. Internationalization is concerned with providing a common substrate that many—preferably all—languages and all users can use, whereas localization is concerned with the use of a particular language within a particular locale and within a defined user population. Unsurprisingly, the two concepts are often confused, particularly when true internationalization is often far more difficult to achieve than localization.

Internationalizing the DNS

The objective is the internationalization of the DNS, such that the DNS can support the union of all character sets while preserving the absence of ambiguity and uncertainty in terms of resolution of any individual DNS name. We need to describe all possible characters in all languages and allow their use in the DNS. So the starting point is the "universal character set," and that appears to be Unicode.

One of the basic building blocks for internationalization is a character set that is the effective union of all character sets. Unicode [3] is intended to be such a universal encoding of characters (and symbols) in the contexts of all scripts and all languages. The current version of the Unicode Standard, Version 5.0, contains 98,884 distinct coded graphic characters.

A sequence of Unicode code points can be represented in multiple ways by using different character encoding schemes in a Unicode Transformation Format (UTF). The most commonly used schemes are UTF-8 and UTF-16.

UTF-8 is a variable-length encoding using 8-bit words, meaning that different code points require different numbers of bytes. The larger the index number of a code point, the more bytes are required to represent it using UTF-8. For example, the first 127 Unicode code points, which correspond exactly to the values used by the ASCII character set (which maps only 127 characters), can be represented using only 8 bits in UTF-8, using the same 8-bit values as in ASCII. UTF-8 can require up to 32 bits to encode certain code points. A criticism of UTF-8 is that it "penalizes" certain scripts by requiring more bytes to represent their code points. The IETF has made UTF-8 its preferred default character encoding for internationalization of Internet application protocols.

UTF-16 is a variable-length character encoding using 16-bit words. Characters in the Basic Multilingual Plane are mapped into a single 16-bit word, with other characters mapped into a pair of 16-bit words.

UTF-32 is a fixed-length encoding that uses 32 bits for every code point. This encoding tends to make for a highly inefficient coding that is, generally, unnecessarily large, because most language uses of Unicode draw characters from the Basic Multilingual Plane, making the average code size 16 bits in UTF-16 as compared to the fixed-length 32 bits in UTF-32. For this reason UTF-32 is far less commonly used than UTF-8 and UTF-16.

But languages, which we humans change in various ways every day, are not always definitive in their use of characters, and Unicode has some weaknesses in terms of identifying a context of a script and a language for a given character sequence. The common approach to using Unicode encodings in application software is to use an associated "tag," allowing content to be tagged with a script and an encoding scheme. For example, a content tag might read: "This text has been encoded using the KOI-8 encoding of the CYRILLIC script."

Tagging allows for decoding of the encoded characters in the context of a given script and a given language. This decoding has been useful for e-mail or Web page content, but tagging breaks down in the context of the DNS. There is no natural space in DNS names to contain language and script tags, implying that attempting to support internationalization in the DNS has to head toward a "universal" character set and a "universal" language context. Another way of looking at this situation is that the DNS must use an implicit tag of "all characters and all languages."

The contexts of the use of DNS names have numerous additional artefacts. What about domain-name label separators? This "dot" between DNS "words," or a DNS label separator, is an ASCII period character. In some languages, such as Thai, for example, there is no natural use of such a label separator. In a similar vein, are URLs intended to be visible to end users? If so, then we may have to transform the punctuation components of the URL into the script of the language. Therefore, we may need to understand how to manage protocol strings, such as "http:" and separators such as the "/" character. To complete the integrity of the linguistic environment, these elements may also require local presentation transformations.

For example, the Thai alphabet uses 44 consonants and 15 basic vowel characters, which are horizontally placed, from left to right, with no intervening space, to form syllables, words, and sentences. Vowels associated with consonants are nonsequential: they can be located before, after, above, or below their associated consonant, or in a combination of these positions. The latter in particular causes problems for computer encoding and text rendering [4].

The DNS name string reads left to right, and not right to left or top to bottom as in other script and language cultures. How much of this string you can encode in the DNS and how much must be managed by the application is part of the problem here. Is the effort to internationalize the DNS with multiple languages restricted to the "words" of the DNS, leaving the implicit left-to-right ordering and the punctuation of the DNS unaltered? If so, how much of this ordering and punctuation is a poor compromise, in that these DNS conventions in such languages are not natural translations?

The Unicode UTF-8, UTF-16, and UTF-32 encodings all require an "8-bit clean" storage and transmission medium. Because "traditional" DNS domain names are representable with 7-bit ASCII characters, not all applications that process domain names preserve the status of the eighth bit; in other words, they are not 8-bit clean. This situation stimulated significant debate in the IETF's IDN Working Group and influenced the direction of the standards development into the area of application assistance: the group took a very conservative view of the capabilities of the DNS as a restricted ASCII code application.

Accordingly, we now see the DNS itself as a heavily restricted "language." The prudent use of the DNS specifies, in RFC 1035 [5], a sequence of "words" (or "labels"), where each label conforms to the "Letter, Digit, Hyphen" (LDH) restriction. Each DNS label must begin with a letter, restricted to the Latin character subset of "A" through "Z" and "a" through "z", followed by a sequence of letters, digits, or hyphens, with a trailing letter or digit, and no trailing hyphen. Furthermore, the case of the letter is not important to the DNS, so, within the DNS "a" is equivalent to "A", and so on, and all characters are encoded in monocase ASCII. The DNS uses a left-to-right ordering of these labels, with the ASCII period as the label delimiter. This restriction is often referred to as the LDH Convention.

The challenge posed with the effort of internationalizing the DNS is one of attempting to create a framework that allows Internet applications—and the DNS in particular—to be set in the user's own language in an entirely natural fashion, and yet allow the DNS to operate in a consistent and deterministic manner within its restricted "language." In other words, we all should be able to use browsers and e-mail systems using our own language and scripts, yet still be able to communicate naturally with others who may be using a different language interface.

The most direct way of stating the choice set of IDN design is that IDNs either change the "prudent use" of the deployed DNS into something quite different by permitting a richer character repertoire in all parts of the DNS, or IDNs change the applications that want to support a multilingual environment such that they have to perform some form of encoding transfer to map between a language string using Unicode characters and an "equivalent" string using the restricted DNS LDH character-set repertoire. It appears that options other than these two lead us into fragmented DNS roots, and having already explored that particular concept in the past, not many of us want to return to that subject. So if we want to maintain a cohesive and unified symbol space for the DNS, then either the deployed DNS has to become 8-bit clean, or applications have to do the work and present to the DNS an encoded form of the Unicode sequences that conform to the restricted DNS character repertoire.

The IDN Framework

If you are an English language user with the ASCII character set, the DNS name you enter into the browser—or the domain part of an e-mail address—is almost the same string as the string that is passed to the DNS resolver to resolve into an address (the difference is the conversion of the characters into monocase). If you want to send a mail message, you might send it to, for example, and the domain name part of this address,, is the string used to query the DNS for an MX Resource Record in order to establish how to actually deliver the message.

But what if you want to use a domain name that is expressed in another language? What if the e-mail address is user@記念.com? The problem here is that this domain name cannot be "naturally" expressed in the restricted syntax of the DNS, and although this domain name may have a perfectly reasonable Unicode code sequence, this encoded sequence is not a strict LDH sequence, nor is it case-insensitive (whatever "case" may mean in an arbitrary non-Latin script). It is here that IDNs depart from the traditional view of the DNS and use a hybrid approach to the task of mapping these language strings into network addresses.

The IDN Working Group of the IETF was formed in 2000 with the goal of developing standards to internationalize domain names. The working group's charter was to specify a set of requirements and develop IETF standards-track protocols to allow use of a broader range of characters in domain names. The outcome of this effort was the IDN in Applications (IDNA) framework, published as RFCs 3454, 3490, 3491, and 3492. [6,7,8,9]

Rather than attempting to expand the character repertoire of the DNS itself, the IDN working group used an ASCII Compatible Encoding (ACE) to encode the binary data of Unicode strings that would make up IDNs into an ASCII character encoding. The concept is similar to the Base64 encoding used by the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extension (MIME) e-mail standards, but whereas Base64 uses 64 characters from ASCII, including uppercase and lowercase, the ACE approach requires the smaller DNS-constrained LDH subset of ASCII.

The working group examined various ACE algorithms in its efforts to converge to a single standard (because different encoding algorithms have different compression goals and yields) and encode the data using slightly different subsets of ASCII. Most proposals specified a prefix to the ACE coding to tag the fact that this string was, in fact, an encoded Unicode string. The IETF adopted punycode as its standard IDN ACE [9]. Punycode was chosen for its efficient encoding compression properties that produce short ACE strings. For example, the domain name of 記念.com encodes with punycode to xn‑‑

IDN in Applications

Although an ASCII-compatible encoding of Unicode characters allows representation of an IDN in a form that will probably not be corrupted by the deployed DNS infrastructure on the Internet, an ACE alone is not a full solution. The IDN approach also needs to specify how and where the ACE should be applied.

The overall approach to IDNs is relatively straightforward. In IDN the application has a critical role to play. The application takes a domain name that is expressed in a particular language using a particular script—and potentially in a particular character and word order that is related to that language—and produces an ASCII-compatible LDH-encoded version of this DNS name. Equally, when presenting a DNS string to the user, the application should take the LDH-encoded DNS name and transform it to a presentation sequence of glyphs that correspond to the original string in the original script.

It is critical that all applications perform this encoding and decoding function correctly, deterministically, and uniformly. In fact, this capability is critical to the entire IDN framework. The basic shift in the DNS semantics that IDNs bring to the DNS is that the actual name itself is no longer in the DNS. An encoded version of the canonical name form sits in the DNS, and applications need to perform the canonical name transformation, as well as the mapping between the Unicode character string and the encoded DNS character string. So we need to agree on what are the "canonical" forms of name strings in every language. We also need to agree on the encoding method, and our various applications must have precise equivalents of these canonical name and encoding algorithms, or the symbolic consistency of the DNS will fail. The problem here is that the DNS does not perform approximate matches or return a set of possible answers to a query. The DNS is a deterministic system that performs a precise match on the query in order to generate a response. The implication here is that if we want the same IDN character sequence to map to the same network response in all cases and all contexts, then all applications must perform precisely the same operations on the character sequence in order to generate the ACE-equivalent label sequence.

RFC 3454 [6] defines a presentation layer in IDN-aware applications that is responsible for the punycode ACE encoding and decoding. This new layer in the application architecture is responsible for encoding any internationalized input in domain names into punycode format before the corresponding LDH encoded domain name is passed to the DNS for resolution. This presentation layer is also responsible for decoding the punycode format in IDNs and rendering the appropriate glyphs for the user.

It is a matter of personal perspective whether this solution is an elegant one or it simply shifts an unresolved problem from one area of the IETF to another. The IDNA approach assumes that it is easier to upgrade applications to all behave consistently in interpreting IDNs than it is to change the underlying DNS infrastructure to be 8-bit clean in a manner that would support direct use of Unicode code points in the DNS.

The Presentation Layer Transform for IDNs

The objective here is to define a reliable and deterministic algorithm that takes a Unicode string in a given language and produces a DNS string as expressed in the LDH character repertoire. This algorithm should not provide a unique 1:1 mapping, but should group "equivalent" Unicode strings, where "equivalence" is defined in the context of the language of use, into the same DNS LDH string. Any reverse mapping from the DNS LDH string into the Unicode string should deterministically select the single "canonical" string from the group of possible IDN strings.


The first part of the presentation layer transform is to take the original Unicode string and apply numerous transformations to it to produce a "regular" or "canonical" form of the IDN string. This form of the string is then transformed using the punycode ACE into an encoded DNS string form. The generic name of this process is, in IDN language, "stringprep," [6] and the particular profile of transformations used in IDNAs is termed "nameprep." [8]

This transform of a Unicode string into a canonical format is based on the observation that many languages have a variety of ways to display the same text and a variety of ways to enter the same text. Although we humans are unconcerned about this concept of expressing an idea in multiple ways, the DNS is an exact equivalence match operation and it cannot tolerate imprecision. So how can the DNS tell that two text strings are intended to be identical, even though their Unicode strings are different? The IDN approach is to transform the string so that all equivalent strings are mapped to the same canonical form, or "stringprep" the string. The stringprep specification is not a complete algorithm, and it requires a "profile" that describes the applicability of the profile, the character repertoire (at the time of writing RFC 3454, it was Unicode 3.2, although the Unicode Consortium has subsequently released Unicode Version 4.0, 4.1, and 5.0), mapping tables normalization, and prohibited output characters.


In converting from a string to a normal, or canonical, form, the first step is to map each character into its normalized equivalent, using a mapping table. This table is conventionally used to map characters to their lowercase equivalent value to ensure that the DNS string comparison is case-insensitive.

Other characters are removed from the string by using this mapping operation because their presence or absence in the string does not affect the outcome of a string-equivalence operation, such as characters that affect glyph choice and placement, but without semantic meaning.

The mapping function will create monocase (specifically lowercase) outcomes and also will eliminate non-significant code points (such as, for example, the Unicode code point 1806; MONGOLIAN TODO SOFT HYPHEN or the Unicode code point 200B; ZERO WIDTH SPACE, if you really wanted to know what a non-significant code point was).


Numerous languages use different character sequences for the same meaning. Characters may appear the same in presentation format as a glyph sequence, yet have different underlying code points. This may be associated with variables ways of combining diacritics, or using canonical code points, or using compatibility characters, and, in some language contexts, performing character reordering. For example, the character Ä can be represented by a single Unicode code point 00C4; LATIN CAPITAL A WITH DIARESIS. Another valid representation of this character is the code point 0041; LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A followed by the separate code point 0398; COMBINING DIARESIS.

The intent of normalization is to ensure that every class of character sequences that are equivalent in the context of a language is translated into a single canonical, consistent format. This consistency of format allows the equivalence operator to perform at the character level using direct comparison without additional language-dependent equivalence operations.

Languages in daily use are not rigid structures, and human use patterns of languages change. Normalization is no more than a best-effort process to detect equivalences in a rigid, rule-managed manner, and it may not always produce predictable outcomes. This unpredictability can be a problem with regard to namespace collisions in the DNS, because it does not increase the confidence level of the DNS as a deterministic exact-match information-retrieval system. IDNs introduce some forms of name approximation into the DNS environment, and the DNS is extremely ill-suited to the related "fuzzy-search" techniques that accompany such approximations.

Filtering Prohibited Characters

The last phase in string preparation is removal of prohibited characters, including the various Unicode white-space code points, control code points and joiners, private-use code points, and other code points used as surrogates or tags.

Right-to-Left Characters

As an option for a particular stringprep profile, you can perform a check for right-to-left displayed characters, and if any are found, make sure that the whole string satisfies the requirements for bidirectional strings. The Unicode standard has an extensive discussion of how to reorder glyphs for display when dealing with bidirectional text such as Arabic or Hebrew. All Unicode text is stored in logical order as distinct from the display order.

Nameprep: A Stringprep Profile for the DNS

The nameprep profile [8] specifies stringprep for internationalized domain names, specifying a character repertoire (in this case the specification references Unicode 3.2) and a profile of mappings, normalization (form "KC"), prohibited characters, and bidirectional character handling. The outcome is that two-character sequences can be considered equivalent in the context of IDNs if, by following the sequences of operations defined by the nameprep profile, the resultant sequences of Unicode code points are identical. These code point sequences are the "canonical" forms of names that the DNS uses.

The Punycode ASCII-Compatible Encoding

The next step in the processing of IDN names by the application is to transform this canonical form of the Unicode name string into a LDH equivalent string using an ACE. The algorithm used, punycode, uses a highly efficient encoding, attempting to limit the extent to which Unicode sequences become extended-length ACE strings.

The algorithm first divides the input code points into a set of "basic" code points that require no further encoding, and the set of "extended" code points. The algorithm takes the basic code points and reproduces this sequence in the encoded string: the "literal portion" of the string. A delimiter is then added to the string. This delimiter is a basic code point that does not occur in the remainder of the string. The extended code points are then added to the string as a series of integers expressed through an encoding into the basic (LDH) code set.

These additions of the extended code points are done primarily in the order of their Unicode values, and secondarily in the order in which they occur in the string. The encoding of the code point and its insertion position is done by using a difference, or offset, encoding, so that sequences of clustered code points, such as would be found in a single language, encode efficiently.

For example, the German language string bücher uses basic codes for all characters except the ü character. The punycode algorithm copies all the basic codes, followed by a "-". The value and position of the ü insertion now has to follow.

The encoded form for ü (code 252) is at the position between the first and second basic characters. Using the punycode [10] algorithm gives a delta code of 745, a value that can be expressed in base 35 as (21 x 35) + 10. This code point and the position information are expressed in base 35 notation as (10,22,1), or in reverse notation, with the encoding kva. So the punycode encoding of bücher is bcher-kva. The internationalized domain-name format prepends the string xn-- to the punycode string, resulting in the encoded IDN domain-name form of xn--bcher-kva.

IDNS and Our Assumptions About the DNS

At this stage it should be evident that we have the code points for characters drawn from all languages, and the means to create canonical forms of various words and express them in an encoded form that the DNS can resolve.

However, there is more to IDNs than the encoding algorithm. Although a massive number of discrete code points exist in the realm of Unicode, all these distinct characters are not necessarily displayed in unique ways. Indeed, given a relatively finite range of glyphs, the same glyph can display numerous discrete code points.

The often-quoted example with IDNs and name confusion is the name paypal. What is the difference between and There is a subtle difference in the first "a" character, where the second domain name has replaced the Latin a with the Cyrillic a. Did you spot the difference? Of course not. These homoglyphs are cases where the underlying domain names are distinct, yet their appearance is indistinguishable. In the first case the domain name is resolved in the DNS with the query string, yet in the second case the query string is translated by the application to the DNS query string How can you tell one case from the other?

This example is by no means a unique case in the IDN realm. The reports "Unicode Security Considerations" (Unicode Technical Report 36) and "Unicode Security Mechanisms" (Unicode Technical Report 39) provide many more examples of postnormalization homographs.

There is no clear and unique relationship between characters and glyphs. Cyrillic, Latin, and Greek share numerous common glyphs. Glyphs may change their shape depending on the character sequence, multiple characters may produce a single glyph, such as the character pair f l being displayed as the single glyph fl, and a single character may generate multiple glyphs.

Homoglyphs extend beyond a conventional set of characters and include syntax elements as well. For example, the Unicode point 0244 FRACTION SLASH is often displayed using the slash glyph, allowing URLs of the form Despite its appearance, this is not a reference to with a locator suffix of, but is a reference to the domain

The basic response is that if you maintain IDN integrity at the application level, then the user just cannot tell. The punycode transform of into is intended to be a secret between the application and the DNS, because this ASCII-encoded form is simply meaningless to the user. But if this encoded form remains invisible to the user, how can the user detect that the two identically presented name strings are indeed different? Sadly, the only true "security" we have in the DNS is the "look" of the DNS name that is presented to the user, and the user typically works on the principle that if the presented DNS string looks like the real thing, then it must be the real thing.

When this homoglyph problem was first exposed, the response from many browser implementations was to turn off all IDN support in their browser. The next response was to deliberately expose the punycode version of the URL in the browser address bar, so that directing the browser to would display in the address bar the URL value of

The distinction between the two equivalently displayed names was then visible to the user, but the downside was that we were back to displaying ASCII names again, and in this case ASCII versions of punycode-encoded names. If trying to "read" Base64 was difficult, then the displaying—and understanding—of displayed punycode names is surely equally as difficult, if not more so. The encoded names can be completely devoid of any form of useful association or meaning. Although the distinction between ASCII and Cyrillic may be evident by overt differences in their ASCII-encoded names, what happens when the homoglyph occurs across two non-Latin languages? The punycode strings are different, but which string is the "intended" one? Did you mean or when you enter a Hindi script URL?

Using ASCII as the fall-back to resolve name confusion in response to the problem of ambiguities in non-ASCII script names appears to be a nonsensical solution. We appear to be back to guessing games in the DNS again, unfortunately, and particularly impossible guessing games at that.

These days most popular browsers display the glyphs, rather than the ASCII punycode, but once more we are back to the homoglyph problem.

If the intention in the IDN effort was to preserve the deterministic property of DNS resolution, such that a DNS query can be phrased deterministically and not have the query degenerate into a search term or require the application of fuzzy logic to complete the query, then we are not quite there yet.

The underlying observation is that languages are indeed human-use systems. They can be tricky, and they invariably use what appear to be rules in strange and inconsistent ways. They are also resistant to automated processing and the application of rigid rule sets. The canonical name forms that are produced by nameprep-like procedures are not comprehensive, nor does it appear that such a rigidly defined rule-driven system can produce the desired outcomes in all possible linguistic situations. And if the intention of the IDN effort was to create a completely "natural" environment using a language environment other than English and a display environment that is not reliant on ASCII and ASCII glyphs, while preserving all the other properties of the DNS, then the outcome does not appear to match our original IDN expectations.

The underlying weakness here is the implicit assumption that in the DNS "what you see is what you get," and that two DNS names that look identical are indeed references to the same name, and when resolved in the DNS produce precisely the same resolution outcome. When you broaden the repertoire of appearances of the DNS, such that the entire set of glyphs can be used in the DNS, then the mapping from glyph to underlying code point is not unique. Any effort to undertake such a mapping needs additional context in the form of a language and script context. But the DNS does not carry such a context, making the task of maintaining uniqueness and determinism of DNS name translation essentially impossible if we also want to maintain the property that it is the appearance, or presentation format, of DNS names to the user that is the foundation stone of the integrity of our trust in the DNS.

Some concerns still remain in this space, including the inclusion of various forms of character codes that are in effect invisible. In addition, homoglyphs could be better managed by using a refined definition of IDN labels that lists which Unicode code points can be used in the context of IDNs, excluding all others. It would be helpful if confusing and non-reversible character mappings were removed from the IDN space, including the consistent treatment of ligatures and diacritics, refining the treatment of right-to-left and left-to-right scripts, and removing the dependency on a particular version of the Unicode standard. This effort is under way in the IETF in the context of revisions to the IDNA specification documents.

IDNS, TLDs, and the Politics of the DNS

So why is there a very active debate, particularly within ICANN-related forums, about putting IDN codes into the root of the DNS as alternative top-level domains (TLDs)?

I have seen two major lines of argument here; namely the argument that favors the existence of IDNs in all parts of the DNS, including the TLDs, and the argument that favors a more restricted view of IDNs in the root of the DNS that links their use to that of an existing (ASCII-based) DNS label in the TLD zone.

Apparently, those who favor the approach of using IDNs in the top-level zone as just another DNS label see this as a natural extension of adding punycode-encoded name entries into lower levels of the DNS. Why should the root of the DNS be any different, in terms of allowing IDNs? Why should a non-Latin script user of the Internet have to enter the TLD code in its ASCII text form, while entering the remainder of the string in a local language? And in right-to-left scripts, where does this awkward ASCII appendage sit when a user attempts to enter it into an application?

Surely, goes the argument, the more natural approach is to allow any DNS name to be wholly expressible in the user's language, implying that all parts of the DNS should be able to carry native language-encoded DNS names. After all, コンピュータ�予約�る.jp looks wrong as a monolingual domain name. What is that .jp appendage doing there in that DNS name? Surely a Japanese user should not have to resort to an ASCII English abbreviation to enter in the country code for Japan, when 日本 is obviously more "natural" in the context of a Japanese user using Japanese script. If we had punycode TLDs then, goes the line of argument, users could enter the entire domain name in their language and have the punycode encoding happen across the entire name string, and then successfully perform a DNS lookup on the punycode equivalent. This way the user would enter the Japanese character sequence: コンピュータ�予約�る.日本 and have the application translate this entry to the DNS string xn‑‑88j0bve5g9bxg1ewerdw490b930f. xn--wgv71a. For this process to work in its entirety uniformly and consistently, the name xn--wgv71a needs to be a TLD name.

We can always take this thought process one step further and question the ASCII string http and the punctuation symbols :// for precisely the same reason, but I have not heard (yet) calls for multilingual equivalents of protocol identifier codes. The multilingual presentation of these elements remains firmly in the provenance of the application, rather than attempting to alter the protocol identifiers in the relevant standards.

The line of argument also encompasses the implicit threat that if the root of the DNS does not embrace TLDs as expressed in the language of the Internet's users, then language communities will break away from a single DNS root and meet their linguistic community's requirements in their own DNS hierarchy. Admitting such encoded tags into the DNS root is the least problematic, including the consequence of inactivity, which is cited as being tantamount to condoning the complete fragmentation of the Internet's symbol set.

Of course having an entirely new TLD name in an IDN name format does not solve all of the potential problems with IDNs. How can a user tell what domain names are in the ASCII top level, and what are in the "equivalent" IDN-encoded TLDs? Are any two name spaces that refer to the same underlying name concept equivalent? Is xn--88j0bve5g9bxg1ewerdw490b930f appropriately a subdomain of .jp, or a subdomain of xn‑‑wgv71a? Should the two domains be tightly synchronized with respect to their zone content and represent the same underlying token set, or should they be independent offerings to the market place, and allow registrants and the end-user base make implicit choices here? In other words, should the pair of domain names, namely xn‑‑88j0bve5g9bxg1ewerdw490b930f.xn‑‑wgv71a and xn‑‑, reference precisely the same DNS zone, or should they be allowed to compete, and each find their own "natural" level of market support based on decoupled TLD names of .jp and .xn‑‑wgv71a?

What does the term equivalence really imply here? Is equivalence something as loose as the relationship between .com and .biz, namely being different abbreviations of words that reflect similar concepts with different name-space populations that reflect market diversity and a competitive supply industry? Or is equivalence a much tighter binding in that equivalent names share precisely the same subdomain name set, and a registration in one of these equivalence names is in effect a name registration across the entire equivalence set?

Even this subject is not readily resolvable given our various interpretations of equivalence. In theory, the DNS root zone is populated by ISO two-letter country codes and numerous "generic" TLDs. Under what basis, and under what authority, is xn--wgv71a considered an "equivalent" of the ISO 3166 two-letter country code JP? Are we falling into the trap once again of making up the rules as we go along? Is the distinction between com and biz apparent only in English? And why should this distinction apply only to non-Latin character sets? Surely it makes more sense for a native German language speaker to refer to commercial entities as kommerze, and the abbreviated TLD name as .kom? When we say "multilingual' are we in fact ignoring "multilingual" and looking exclusively at "multiscript"?

Let's put aside the somewhat difficult concept of name equivalence for a second, and assume that this equivalence problem is solved. Also suppose that we want tight coupling across equivalence sets of names.

In other words, what we want is that a name registered in any of the elements of the equivalent domain-name set in all scripts is, in effect, registered in all the equivalent DNS zones. The question is: how should it be implemented in the DNS? One approach that could support tight synchronization of equivalence is to use the DNAME record [11] to create these TLD name aliases for their ASCII equivalents, thereby allowing a single name registration to be resolvable using a root name expressed in any of the linguistic equivalents of the original TLD name. The DNAME entry for all but the "canonical" element of the equivalence set effectively translates all queries to a query on the canonical name. The positive aspects of such an approach is uniformity across linguistic equivalents of the TLD name form—a single name delegation in a TLD domain becomes a name within all the linguistic equivalents of the TLD name without any further delegation or registration required.

Using DNAME as a tool to support sets of equivalent names in the DNS is still in the early stages. The limited experience so far with DNAME indicates that CNAME synthesis places load back on the name servers that would otherwise not be there, and the combination of this synthetic record and DNSSEC starts to get very unwieldy. Also, the IETF is reviewing the DNAME specification with the intention to remove the requirement to perform CNAME synthesis. All of these factors may explain why there is no immediate desire to place DNAMEs in the DNS root zone.

Different interpretations of equivalence in IDN names are possible. The use of DNAMEs as aliases for existing TLDs in effect "locks up" IDNs into the hands of the incumbent TLD name-registry operators. Part of the IDN debate, is, as usual, a debate over the generic TLD registry operators and the associated perception of incumbent monopolies. An alternative approach is to associate a single registrar with each IDN variant of the same generic TLD, allowing a form of "competition" between the various registrars. From the perspective of a coherent symbol space where the same symbol, expressed in any language script, resolves in the same fashion, such independent registries are not overly consistent with such a model of registry diversity in a multilingual environment. In this case such an artifice of IDN "competition" may well do more harm than good for Internet users.

It appears that another line of argument is that the DNS top-level name space is very conservatively managed, and new entries into this space are not made lightly. There are concerns of stability of operation, of attempting to conserve a coherent namespace, and the ever-present consideration that if we manage to "break" the DNS root zone it would be an irrevocable act.

This line of argument recognizes the very hazy nature of name equivalence in a multilingual environment and is based on the proposition that the DNS is incapable of representing such imprecision with any utility. The DNS is not a search engine, and the DNS does not handle imprecision at all well. Again, goes the argument, if this is the case then can we push this problem back to the application rather than trying to bend the DNS? If an application is capable of translating, say, 日本 into xn‑‑wgv71a, and considering that the TLD name space is relatively small, it appears that having the application performing a further translation of this intermediate form punycode string into the ASCII string jp is not a particularly challenging form of table lookup. In such a model no new TLD aliases or equivalences are required in the root zone of the DNS. If we are prepared to pass the execution of the presentation layer of the DNS to the application layer to perform, then why not also ask this same presentation layer to perform the step of further mapping the punycode ACE equivalents of the TLDs to the actual ASCII TLDs, using some richer language context that the application may be aware of that is not viable strictly within the confines of the DNS?

So, with respect to the question of whether IDN TLDS should be loaded into the DNS at all, and, if so, whether they should represent an opportunity for further diversity in name supply or be constrained to be aligned to existing names, and precisely how name equivalence is to be interpreted in this context, then it appears that ICANN has managed to place itself in a challenging situation. In not making a decision, those with an interest in having diverse IDN TLDs appear to derive some pleasure in pointing out that the political origins of ICANN and its strong linguistic bias to English are influencing it to ignore non-English language use and non-English language users of the Internet. Where dramatic statements are called for, such statements often use terms such as "cultural imperialism" to illustrate the nature of the linguistic insult. The case has been made repeatedly, in support of IDN TLDs, that an overwhelming majority of Internet users and commercial activity of the Internet is in languages other than native English, and the imposition of ASCII labels on the DNS is an unnatural imposition on the overwhelming majority of Internet users.

On the other hand, most decisions to permit some form of entry in the DNS are generally seen as irrevocable, and building a DNS that is littered with the legacy of various non-enduring name technologies and poor ad hoc decisions to address a particular concern or problem without any context of a longer-term framework seems also to represent a step along a direction leading to a heavily littered and fragmented Internet where, ultimately, users cannot communicate with each other.

What about global interoperability and the Internet? Should we just take the easy answer and simply give up on the entire concept? Well of course not! But, taking a narrower perspective, are IDNs simply not viable in the DNS? I would suggest that not only is this question one that was overtaken by events years ago, but even if we want to reconsider it now, then the answer remains that any users using their local language and local script should have an equally "natural" experience. IDNs are a necessary and valuable component of the symbol space of any global communications system, and the Internet is no exception. However, we also should recognize that we do need combinations of both localization and globalization, and that we are voicing some pretty tough objectives. Is the IDNA approach enough? Is our assumption that an unaltered DNS with application-encoded name strings represents a rich enough platform to preserve the essential properties of the DNS while allowing true multilingual use of the DNS? On the other hand, taking a pragmatic view of the topic, is what we have with IDNA enough for us to work on, and is the alternative of reengineering the entire fabric of the DNS into an 8-bit clean system just not a viable option?

I suspect that the framework of IDNA is now the technology for IDNs for the Internet, and we simply have to move on from here and deliberately take the stance of understanding the space from users' perspectives when we look at the policy concerns of IDNs. The salient questions from such perspectives include: "What is the 'natural' thing to do?" and "What causes a user the least amount of surprise?" Because in this world, what works for the user is what works for the Internet as a whole.

Further IDN News

IDNs are by no means completed work. Development continues in the Unicode forum on elaboration of character sets, and there are further proposals in the IETF to continue a complementary standards activity of refining the IDN documents.

In February 2008 the Applications Area of the IETF announced a proposal for further work on IDNs. The proposal has noted that the existing RFC documents are tied to version 3.2 of Unicode, while the Unicode Consortium has released version 5.0.0.

The proposed work is to consider revision of the IDN documents to untie the Internet specifications that define validity based on Unicode properties from specific versions of Unicode using algorithms. It is also proposed that these updates study revision of bi-directional algorithms, and to permit the use of some scripts that were inadvertently excluded by the original Internet specification.

This is not intended to be a major rewrite of the IDN approach, and, in particular, IDNs will continue to use the xn-- prefix, the same Punycode ASCII-compatible encoding, and the bidirectional algorithm is intended to follow the same design as presently specified.

Further Reading

It is possible to reference an overwhelming amount of commentary on this topic, so I have deliberately kept this list of further reading on the topic of IDNs relatively brief:

[A] John Klensin, "Internationalizing Top-Level Domain Names: Another Look," ISOC Member Briefing, September 2004,

[B] John Klensin, "National and Local Characters for DNS Top Level Domain (TLD) Names," RFC 4185, October 2005.

[C] Papers submitted to the ICANN IDN TLD workshop, held in November 2005:

[D] Internet Architecture Board, "Review and Recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs)," RFC 4690, September 2006.

[E] "ICANN's IDN Roadmap Announcement—Progress and Future,"

[F] "An Important Step Toward the Implementation of IDN Top-Level Domains: New Versions of IDNA Protocol Revision Proposals Posted,"

[G] ICANN's IDN Evaluation Gateway. Eleven new internationalized domains representing the name example.test entirely in scripts other than the Latin characters:






[5] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names:Implementation and Specification," RFC 1035, November 1987.

[6] Hoffman, P., and Blanchet, M., "Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep")," RFC 3454, December 2002.

[7] Hoffman, P., Fältström, P., and Costello, A., "Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)," RFC 349, March 2003.

[8] Hoffman, P., and Blanchet, M., "Nameprep: A Stringprep Profile for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)," RFC 3491, March 2003.

[9] Costello, A., "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)," RFC 3492, March 2003.


[11] Crawford, M., "Non-Terminal DNS Name Redirection," RFC 2672, August 1999.

GEOFF HUSTON holds a B.Sc. and a M.Sc. from the Australian National University. He has been closely involved with the development of the Internet for many years, particularly within Australia, where he was responsible for the initial build of the Internet within the Australian academic and research sector. The author of numerous Internet-related books, he is currently the Chief Scientist at APNIC, the Regional Internet Registry serving the Asia Pacific region. He was a member of the Internet Architecture Board from 1999 until 2005, and served on the Board of the Internet Society from 1992 until 2001. E-mail: