IDNAbis Main Open Issues

Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzmeyer at
Mon Jan 21 10:31:39 CET 2008

On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 10:12:55AM +0100,
 Harald Alvestrand <harald at> wrote 
 a message of 37 lines which said:

> If "permit" means the same as "ALWAYS", I am *strongly* against this
> approach. For all the reasons stated in -issues and in tons of
> previous email on this list.

Which do not convince me and apparently many others since there is not
even an IETF WG on IDNAbis. IDN works as it is, there is certainly
room for improvement (the most important being to include Unicode
characters > 3.2) but I disagree with the idea that it needs "fixing".

> are you talking about NEVER (which the resolvers SHOULD police), or
> about MAYBE (which the resolvers SHOULD NOT police)?

That's not how I read section 5.4 of
draft-klensin-idnabis-protocol-00.txt. I do not see the SHOULD NOT,
just a "characters that fall into the "Maybe" (see [IDNA200X-issues])
categories in the inclusion tables do not lead to label rejection on
resolution", which is partially contradicted by the later text.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :

More information about the Idna-update mailing list