IDNAbis Main Open Issues
harald at alvestrand.no
Mon Jan 21 10:57:12 CET 2008
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 10:12:55AM +0100,
> Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no> 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".
Why do you think an IETF WG is needed?
The advice I've seen so far is that it adds no benefit.
>> 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.
Could you relate that to version -02, which is the current version, please?
I don't see how it is "partially contradicted by later text"; the text
you quoted says exactly what I said (at least that's how I read it).
More information about the Idna-update