Follow-up to Monday's discussion of digits

[Alireza Saleh]

Dear Vint,

Yes, in my opinion, the visual confusions and such stuffs are out of the 
scope of IDNA.  I think If IDNA like to talk about these things, then we 
may need to setup another working group called DNSA, and start 
discussing about problems like resolving the mixing of 'l' and '1' in 
ASCII domains**.

Alireza


Vint Cerf wrote:
> Alireza,
>
> point taken. So the delicate issue is where to draw the line between 
> protocol prohibition and dependence on registry filtering.
>
> 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 <mailto:vint at google.com>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:42 PM, Alireza Saleh wrote:
>
>> Dear Vint,
>>
>> Would you **please** consider that Arabic Language is not the only 
>> language which  uses Arabic-Script. Some countries such as Iran using 
>> both sets because 4-5-6 look different in two sets.
>> A registry for the security reasons may prohibit the Digit-Mixing , 
>> but the domain's owner  may want to mix it to attract the market.
>> For example : please visit   ش_/*۴٤*/_.تست.کام .   Is it really fare 
>> to prohibit it ?
>>
>> alireza
>>
>> Vint Cerf wrote:
>>> Eric,
>>>
>>> in the various email exchanges from Arabic working group(s), I came 
>>> away with the impression that a safer and apparently acceptable 
>>> policy would be to prohibit mixing of any of these three in the same 
>>> label. That is plainly more stringent than your proposal but I did 
>>> not get the sense that the working groups whose email exchanges I 
>>> was privileged to see felt they needed to mix any of these together.
>>>
>>> Vint
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2008/11/18 Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net 
>>> <mailto:ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>>
>>>
>>>     Vint, John, Paf, All,
>>>
>>>     On the question of what to do about the code points in the ranges
>>>
>>>     U+0030..U+0039,
>>>     U+0660..U+0669,
>>>     U+06F0..U+06F9,
>>>
>>>     I think that allowing only the first range is incorrect.
>>>
>>>     I think that allowing all three ranges is correct if a mechanism
>>>     for equivalency exists.
>>>
>>>     Assuming that no equivalence mechanism exists, for whatever
>>>     rational, I think that allowing the first range, and only one of
>>>     the second two ranges, is sufficient.
>>>
>>>     Outside of the protocol, registries are free to implement a
>>>     registry-local policy, which may restrict code points in a label
>>>     to one range only, or one of two ranges, where one is in the
>>>     U+0030..U+0039 range, but not both of the ranges U+0660..U+0669
>>>     and U+06F0..U+06F9.
>>>
>>>     As I mentioned yesterday, and as the jabber scribe correctly
>>>     summarized:
>>>
>>>     ajsaf at jabber.org <mailto:ajsaf at jabber.org> Eric: reject latin-only
>>>     ajsaf at jabber.org <mailto:ajsaf at jabber.org> accept proposal for no
>>>     mix between extended and non-extended
>>>     ajsaf at jabber.org <mailto:ajsaf at jabber.org> but overboard to go 
>>> further
>>>
>>>     There are, as John rebutted, buggy input methods, but that can't
>>>     be controlling.
>>>
>>>     Eric
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Idna-update mailing list
>>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no <mailto:Idna-update at alvestrand.no>
>>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>
>