Comments on draft-ietf-idnabis-defs-10

Elisabeth Blanconil eblanconil at gmail.com
Mon Aug 31 00:35:09 CEST 2009


Dear Wil,
thank you for reading the interplus provisional documents and spotting
how IUCG user members trust the WG Charter when it states :

"The WG will stop work and recommend that a new charter be generated
if it concludes that any of the following are necessary to meet its
goals:

"(i) A change to the "punycode" algorithm or to the ACE approach to
encoding names  in the DNS."
-> this is now what you propose.

"(ii) A change to the ACE prefix from "xn--"
-> you now propose a change from "xn--" to "$$--"

"(iii) A change to the basic approach taken in the design team
documents (Namely: independence from Unicode version and elimination
of character mapping in the protocol)"
-> Vint already proposed the change of the last sub-point.Yet the WG
has not stopped work as the Chair confirmed it when I asked if it was
necessary for an I_D concerning and quoting the WG to be published as
a WG Draft or if IUCG could submit it.

As we expected it, at this stage of the document set production, a few
hours before the end of the WG/LC, you question the worked out rough
consensus. Since we obviously expected your requests, we have
considered at length how they could be best addressed. Our consensus
is:

1. either the Chair calls for a stop on the WG work, and a debate on
Charter changes to be proposed.
2. either the Charter (modified or not?) is respected and we make (i),
(ii) and (iii) an issue for the IETF/LC.
3. or we face an IETF process and architectural conflict that will
probably resolve at network clients level.

It would be better to avoid (3). (1) and (2) seem technically
equivalent at this stage. The real issue is the impact of the
resulting further delays in implementing IDNA2008, on Fast Track and
IDNccTLDs, etc. and their FLOSS strategic equivalents: Project.FRA,
Multilinc, etc. FYI, since FLOSS have no financial nor political
dependency, AFAIK they seem to be on track.

Best regards.
Elisabeth Blanconil

2009/8/30 Wil Tan <wil at cloudregistry.net>:
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 5:17 PM, John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com> wrote:
>>
>> --On Monday, August 24, 2009 23:24 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
>> <ajs at shinkuro.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > In a previous comment (see
>> > http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2009-July/00497
>> > 0.html), I made a vague remark about something I find
>> > worrisome in this text in §2.3.2.1:
>> >...
>>
>> These changes, with Paul's suggested modifications, have been
>> tentatively accepted and incorporated in the document.  Anyone
>> who objects should say so quickly.
>>
>
> I posted a comment related to the definition of A-label some time ago, but
> the thread was
> digressed: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2009-June/004558.html
> The issue is with case variants of A-labels. By DNS rules, as mentioned in
> several places in the idnabis-defs draft, A-labels are to be compared in a
> case independent manner. However, if certain characters in an A-label have
> been uppercased, the Punycode decoding algorithm (due to its mixed-case
> annotation feature) may produce invalid U-label because the ASCII characters
> will be in capital letter form.
> =wil
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
>


More information about the Idna-update mailing list