AW: Sharp-S and Final Sigma Consensus Call Results
Mark Davis ☕
mark at macchiato.com
Thu Dec 10 18:16:59 CET 2009
While we could all declare Mission Accomplished, and push this out the door
as is, if there is no viable transition strategy and the best implementers
can do to support their customers in avoiding compatibility and security
problems is to map, then they will map--no matter what the consensus among
the thirty-odd individuals in this WG is.
If a viable transition strategy can be formulated for avoiding problems
during the transition, I don't think there is any problem with having these
4 characters be PVALID. That strategy needs to be part of the IDNA
specification, so that we don't get dozens of *different* transition
strategies. It appears to me that we are still in the midst of that
discussion, because it never got serious attention beforehand. So closing
off such a discussion would be premature, no matter how sick and tired we
are of the IDNA issues.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 22:37, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>wrote:
> Hello John, others,
> I agree with half of Shawn, namely that this should be a MUST NOT.
> The reason is that there have been many people on this list that say
> that this is a really bad idea, but on the other hand, there have been
> serious proposals (read TRs) to just do that.
> Regards, Martin.
> On 2009/12/10 6:18, John C Klensin wrote:
> > --On Wednesday, December 09, 2009 21:40 +0100 Alexander
> > Mayrhofer<alexander.mayrhofer at nic.at> wrote:
> >>>> I am supporting PVALID for both Sharp-S and Final Sigma,
> >>>> given that mapping of PVALID characters is disallowed.
> >>> Mapping of PVALID characters is *not* disallowed in
> >>> draft-ietf-idnabis-mappings-05.
> >> I understand. An i don't think draft-ietf-idnabis-mappings
> >> should be the place where mapping of PVALID characters should
> >> be disallowed - it's an Informational document.
> >> The rule would need to be in one of the Standards Track
> >> documents.
> > Since I'm trying to look at text this afternoon and evening, is
> > there agreement that it would be wise to add a "SHOULD NOT
> > change the interpretation of valid strings by mapping PVALID
> > characters to anything else" to the portion of Protocol where
> > mapping is mentioned, or should (sic) I leave well enough alone?
> > If the former, is that a correct statement of the proposition?
> > Note that such a statement would make Sharp-S to "ss" mapping
> > not-fully-conformant to IDNA2008, even though "SHOULD" does
> > leave an opening...
> > Vint?
> > john
> > _______________________________________________
> > Idna-update mailing list
> > Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
> #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Idna-update