Consensus Call Tranche 7 (BIDI) Summary

Harald Alvestrand harald at alvestrand.no
Thu Oct 23 17:52:50 CEST 2008


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



More information about the Idna-update mailing list