Consensus Call Tranche 7 (BIDI) Summary

[Alireza Saleh]

I would like you to know that my opinion is that it is not a good idea 
to have  non-confusing labels which they can make confusing domains (?!) 
. Isn't it better to leave them both ( domains and labels ) confusing or 
both non-confusing ?

Besides, what if we merge  the Registration and Lookup steps of IDNA 
test as follow :
IDNA tests shouldn't stop resolving the domain, but if a label fails 
against any IDNA test, the entire domain which contains that label MUST 
only be shown as punycode version (?!)

/\leez


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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>