idna-mapping update

Vint Cerf vint at
Sun Dec 20 01:57:08 CET 2009


Two things strike me about your line of reasoning. First, the IDNABIS  
WG spent considerable time crafting the mapping document - we achieved  
a delicate consensus on this non-normative contribution. Re-opening  
this within the IDNABIS WG does not strike me as fruitful. At least  
the IDN Guidelines group is starting with a relatively open agenda if  
I have understood correctly. Second, the assumption that "most of us  
have no say" may be an overstatement or perhaps mistaken. Cary Karp  
can probably speak to this more accurately than I can but I see no  
reason why a competent contribution would be turned away. I feel  
strongly motivated to complete the technical work of IDNABIS, which I  
believe was accomplished with the normative documents; the rationale  
and mappings documents illustrate significant issues in the design and  
implementation of IDNA2008. One might even argue that forwarding the  
present documents to IESG and gaining their imprimatur would provide a  
good foundation for the discussions to be undertaken in the Guidelines  


On Dec 19, 2009, at 6:16 PM, Michel SUIGNARD wrote:

>> From Vint Cerf
>> Another way to think about this, Michel, is that the IDNABIS
>> working group simply does not make a normative recommendation
>> on mapping. It has been consistent about no mapping for
>> registration (in other words, you register only PVALID
>> characters and the registry does not map for the registrant).
>> With regard to lookup, there isn't consensus within the IDNABIS
>> WG on either the nature of mappings or even the advisability.
> Vint,
> No disagreement here, my message was aiming at making the mapping  
> process consistent between idna-mappings and Unicode TR 46, to avoid  
> confusion among implementers. The fact that idna-mappings is out  
> there in the idna-bis web page is still an implied indication that  
> there is support for it. If it gets published either as an optional  
> part of idna 2008 or separately, it would still be a good idea to  
> converge with what was suggested in Unicode TR46.
>> It has been suggested that a better forum in which to deal with
>> IDNA2003 and IDNA2008 incompatibility is the ICANN IDN Guidelines
>> Committee. That may be a better forum with broader participation
>> than the IDNABIS working group in which the TR46 proposal or other
>> proposals may be discussed. If we adopt Cary Karp's offer, your
>> observations, below, would be input into the Guidelines committee
>> discussions.
> Compatibility issues are only part of the problem. Having a well  
> recognized mapping is also important. Combining both as done in the  
> proposal I am advocating is probably the best solution. Finally I am  
> not sure to see how the Guidelines committee process will create  
> broader participation if we are limited to discretionary input into  
> a committee where most of us have no say.
> Michel

More information about the Idna-update mailing list