Consensus Call Tranche 7 (BIDI) Summary

[Vint Cerf]

yes go for it.

v

NOTE NEW BUSINESS ADDRESS AND PHONE
Vint Cerf
Google
1818 Library Street, Suite 400
Reston, VA 20190
202-370-5637
vint at google.com




On Oct 23, 2008, at 11:52 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> Vint Cerf wrote:
>> Consensus Call Tranche 7 (BiDi Model) Summary
>>
>> YES - 16
>> NO - 0
>>
>> We seem to have consensus on the BIDI document content with the  
>> proviso that some additional wording or explanation could be added  
>> per the comments below.
>>
>> Harald, et al, are you able to propose additional language that  
>> might capture the desire for clarity? Perhaps we need a thread  
>> specific to the discussion about what SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT be  
>> allowed in ZONE data? I do not detect exact consensus on the point  
>> but wonder whether there IS a (reasonable?) desire to warn against  
>> (prohibit?) registration of strings that fail the BIDi tests?
> I'll try to come up with proposed text.
>
> What seems to make sense to me is to have the bidi document define  
> a test (the bidi test) that is applied to a single label. The  
> protocol document can then refer to this single-label test with the  
> necessary MUSTs or SHOULDs in its registration and lookup phases.
>
> The other text in the bidi document can be turned into explanatory  
> text that says things like "you will have confusability issues if  
> you allow both 3.<aleph>.com and <aleph>.3.com to be registered, so  
> a sensible domain operator will only allow one of them to be  
> registered" - which can then be pointed to by registry operators  
> wanting to behave sensibly, without requiring types of test that  
> are known to be impossible to make work in all cases.
>
> Bearing in mind that adherence to IETF standards is voluntary.
>
> Makes sense?
>
>                       Harald
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20081102/b9964fe1/attachment-0001.htm