Consensus Call Tranche 7 (BiDi Model)

Andrew Sullivan ajs at commandprompt.com
Tue Oct 14 17:54:39 CEST 2008


On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 05:24:00AM -0400, Vint Cerf wrote:
> Consensus Call Tranche 7 (BiDi Model)
>
> Place your reply here: [YES]
>
> COMMENTS:
>
> (7) The Bidi model
>
> (7.a) Bidi tests are not made between labels in the protocol
> although warnings about possible presentation and others
> difficulties should appear in the Bidi discussion.  (P.4)

I'm ok with this.

> (7.b) Bidi tests SHOULD be applied at lookup time (not MUST).
> (P.5)

I'm ok with this, provided that we slightly strengthen the definition
(wherever it lands).  Currently, in rationale, it's defined this way:

   The terms [sic] "lookup" is used to describe the combination of
   operations performed by this protocol and those actually performed
   by a DNS resolver.

I think this could be made more pointed by adding some remark like,
"'Resolution', as usually used in a DNS context, is part of lookup,
but a lookup involves a number of steps that are performed before any
DNS activity happens."  I'm sure someone can make that prettier.  I
realise that this does not actually add anything to the current
definition.  The point of this is to be very clear, so that we don't
get into a DNS bunfight later.

I note, also, that the consensus call did not discuss the current
protocol restriction on registration, which is this:

   Additional special tests for right-to-left strings are applied (See
   [IDNA2008-BIDI].  Strings that contain right to left characters that
   do not conform to the rule(s) identified there MUST NOT be inserted
   as labels in zone files.

I remain pretty uncomfortable with any part of this specification
making new requirements on what may be put into DNS zone data.  I
predict that the above restriction is going to be rejected out of hand
by some registry operators.  If you really want this paragraph to
stand, you will for sure be updating the DNS specifications and the
document will run the risk of getting handed to dnsext for review of
this provision.  Is this provision really necessary?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at commandprompt.com
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/


More information about the Idna-update mailing list