<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Since nobody answered Paul Hoffman's
note attached below, I will contribute my 2 cents.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">a) Personally, I fail to find a relation
between the mentioned paragraph from section 5.4 and inter-label checking.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">b) Anyway, I am for making the Bidi
checking on lookup a MUST. Otherwise, registrars may be only too
tempted to take liberties with the Bidi rules when assigning domain names.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Shalom (Regards), Mati<br>
Bidi Architect<br>
Globalization Center Of Competency
- Bidirectional Scripts<br>
IBM Israel<br>
Phone: +972 2 5888802 Fax:
+972 2 5870333 Mobile: +972 52 2554160<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">From:</font>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">To:</font>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>,
idna-update@alvestrand.no</font>
<tr>
<td valign=top><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Cc:</font>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>,
ck@nic.museum, Matitiahu Allouche/Israel/IBM@IBMIL, Alireza Saleh <saleh@nic.ir></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:</font>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">29/08/2009 18:38</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:</font>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Special case for Bidi in draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-14</font></table>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>At 3:42 AM -0400 8/29/09, John C Klensin wrote:<br>
> > The paragraph in section 5.4 that starts "This test may..."
is<br>
>> out of date because the rules in the Bidi document no longer<br>
>> do inter-label checking. The whole paragraph can be removed.<br>
>><br>
>> In the light of this, does the WG want to change the<br>
>> requirement level for checking Bidi on lookup from SHOULD to<br>
>> MUST? Given the above, I see no reason why not.<br>
><br>
>I need WG input or instructions from the Chair on both of the<br>
>suggestions above.<br>
<br>
It would be good to hear from Harald and Cary and Mati and Alireza and
any other folks who have been dealing with Bidi more seriously than I.
It would be wrong for us to have a "special case" that downgrades
an interoperability requirement that is not necessary.<br>
<br>
My reading of this last part of the requirements list of 5.4 is that the
only reason that it is not a MUST is that there might be special cross-label
bidi considerations. I thought that those have been removed from the bidi
document. I could be wrong on either of these, but if I'm right, we can
simplify 5.4 in protocol by just making the last bullet a MUST like the
rest of them.<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>