Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050208201939.0d094430@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:31:40 +0100
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <4208D8EC.6020709@seng.sg>
References: <6.1.2.0.2.20050208125802.03622030@pop.online.fr>
	<4208D8EC.6020709@seng.sg>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: paf@cisco.com, ietf@ietf.org, Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca,
	phoffman@imc.org, amc@nicemice.net
Subject: Re: IDN security violation? Please comment
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Dear James,
A Registry can certainly take care of SLD, not of lower levels. IMHO the 
problem is no more with IDNs (no one want to change RFC 3490!), but to 
avoid to propagate the problem into the IRI. For that we need to have a 
precise langtag to precisely define the IDN locale in the IRI and precises 
rules concerning the way the IDN should the be built in the IRI (including 
the TLD). Obviously such rules should only be to inform the user (I do not 
thing there is way to force them), so may result from a BCP.

May be interesting to write it, rather than to leave it to ICANN or to ITU?
jfc

At 16:21 08/02/2005, James Seng wrote:
>For the 5th time today, it is already documented in RFC 3490.
>
>http://james.seng.cc/archives/2005/02/08/idn_and_homographs_spoofing.html
>
>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>>May be IDN specialists will want to comment this.
>>http://www.shmoo.com/idn/homograph.txt
>>Is this exact? This is urgent as the IRI is based upon IDN and support of 
>>multilingualism is a WSIS priority and comments for the WGIG are to close 
>>the day after tomorrow.
>>Thank you.
>>jfc


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf