AW: Sharp-S and Final Sigma Consensus Call Results
Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com
Fri Dec 11 00:15:19 CET 2009
Frankly, I’m waffling. I don’t want to break IDNA2003 and especially don’t want to send people other places, however if we’re set on PVALID (as opposed to maybe some preferred presentation form mechanism), then I don’t see any way of not breaking them.
AFAICT: All the transition plans so far merely delay the pain, or codify the best practice. There’s nothing that enforces the transition, and we know that HUGE segments will be unaware or unable to transition. (The lower zones like blogspot any of those. Some may be aware and do the work, but most probably won’t). It might even be really hard for some of them to bundle in any reasonable time frame, and they may not have the incentive if there’s no immediate impact.
So I think either they should be PVALID and just live with the resulting mess. (& do it ASAP as the mess gets bigger daily), or they should be some PVALID-but-bundled-per-the-RFC that allows presentation and enforces bundling.
From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Mark Davis ?
Sent: , 10, 2009 9:17
To: Martin J. Dürst
Cc: Alexander Mayrhofer; idna-update at alvestrand.no; John C Klensin; Vint Cerf
Subject: Re: AW: Sharp-S and Final Sigma Consensus Call Results
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<mailto: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.
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<mailto: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
>> 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
> 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...
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no<mailto:Idna-update at alvestrand.no>
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp<mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Idna-update mailing list
Idna-update at alvestrand.no<mailto:Idna-update at alvestrand.no>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Idna-update