Requirements document (Re: New version,draft-faltstrom-idnabis-tables-02.txt, available)

Martin Duerst duerst at
Mon Jun 18 11:59:08 CEST 2007

At 17:24 07/06/18, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Martin Duerst <duerst at> writes:

>> The issues document should probably mention this, because it's
>> an issue in the sense that it has to be duely considered and
>> checked of, but for everybody who has looked even a bit into
>> this issue will understand that it's a non-issue, in the sense
>> that applications should just upgrade to the new, correct
>> version of normalization without any problems.
>Well, upgrading would violate the current IDNA specification, and libidn
>will maintain its implementation of the IDNA documents, see:
>If the new IDNA specification changes anything wrt pr29, that will break
>backwards compatibility for a set of strings, and I expect there to be
>discussion about what the strategy to resolve this incompatibility will
>The strings doesn't occur in natural language, but may occur in
>non-natural strings such as passwords, and my suggestion has been that
>all the problematic strings should be rejected.  It only affects a small
>number of strings.

Your suggestion is one to consider. My personal opinion would be
that because for passwords, prohibition is as bad as a change
(in normalization), and a normalization change is easier to
implement (change one character, in the case of your source)
than a special prohibition, so I'd favor just changing things.

On top of that, I'd note that even most passwords have some connections
with natural language (at least by the fact that they are usually
typed in on a keyboard), so the chance that a password contains
such a string is still extremely, extremely low (essentially, we
are still talking about an empty set).

Regards,    Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#       mailto:duerst at     

More information about the Idna-update mailing list