BIDI rules

[Erik van der Poel]

Hi John,

It's taking too long to publish IDNAbis. It's a pity that you don't
think it's acceptable to turn bidi into an Experimental RFC.

Alireza, sorry about hijacking your thread. I hope you can reply to
Harald's reply, so that we can all understand your original email a
bit better.

Erik

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:12 PM, John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com> wrote:
> Eric,
>
> I believe that treating Bidi as experimental at this point would
> be equivalent to saying "until we have more experience with
> this, no one should use a domain name containing R-to-L
> characters in any serious way for which future stability is
> needed".    That is more or less the meaning of "experimental":
> "not ready for production use".
>
> And I don't  believe that is acceptable.
>
>     john
>
>
> --On Thursday, 04 September, 2008 13:06 -0700 Erik van der Poel
> <erikv at google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
>> <harald at alvestrand.no> wrote:
>>> Erik van der Poel skrev:
>>>>
>>>> At the IETF meeting, I started thinking that we should not
>>>> worry about getting the bidi rules exactly right this time,
>>>> since we still have the opportunity to refine the spec as we
>>>> move from Proposed to Draft, and then to Standard.
>>>>
>>>> But now I'm wondering whether we might remove the bidi
>>>> reference from the IDNAbis protocol, and submit the bidi
>>>> draft as an Experimental RFC?
>>>
>>> This would only be logical if we replaced it with a statement
>>> that RTL characters cannot be used in domain names, unless
>>> within the confines of a (documented) experiment - if the
>>> main documents were to remove all restrictions, we can't put
>>> restrictions back.
>>
>> But Harald, we *are* adding restrictions to DNS as time goes
>> on. For a long time, the rule was simply LDH. Now the IDNAbis
>> draft is proposing to add additional restrictions if the app
>> is IDNA-aware. (See section 5.4 of protocol-03.)
>>
>> All I am suggesting is that we might remove the bidi rule from
>> the IDNAbis protocol draft, and submit the bidi draft as an
>> Experimental RFC. If/when that experiment matures, we refine
>> it and submit it as Proposed, with those additional
>> restrictions applying only when the app is bidi-IDNA-aware.
>>
>> Of course, IDNAbis ought to explain what happened to the bidi
>> rules that were in IDNA2003. Perhaps IDNAbis could have an
>> informative reference to the Experimental bidi-IDNA RFC, but
>> it wouldn't have any bidi SHOULDs or MUSTs in the protocol.
>>
>> Erik
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>