KATS (Korean Agency for Technology and Standards)'s Comments on theUnicode Codepoints and IDNA Internet-Draft

[Dae Hyuk Ahn]

Dear Martin,

I'm sorry but I really cannot understand what you are saying. With your German and Hungarian example, you are saying there is no way to block those ambiguous accents. So that they need to live with possibility of spoofing.

But for the Hangul case, it is *easy* just to block those Jamo blocks from IDNA. And the Korean government and linguistic community do *not* need other than 11K precomposed syllables for the domain names.

What is the real reason that some of you are continuing to put those Jamos into IDNA?

(I worked for Hangul code and encoding more than 20 years, since the Apple II+. And I am still one of the committee members of SC2 Korea.)

Thanks,
Dae Hyuk Ahn. Ph.D.

-----Original Message-----
From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Martin Duerst
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 7:19 PM
To: idna-update at alvestrand.no
Cc: Jaeyoun Kim
Subject: Re: KATS (Korean Agency for Technology and Standards)'s Comments on theUnicode Codepoints and IDNA Internet-Draft

Dear Mr. Kim,

Many thanks for this document. It is very helpful in that it contains
some new arguments re. Hangul Jamos. What it essentially says is that
some historically used Hangul letters look too similar to different
modern letters to be distinguished by the modern user.

To give one equivalent for Latin, this is as if there were, historically,
two versions of E, one with a shorter middle bar, and another with
a middle bar of the same length as the top or bottom bar. A modern
reader wouldn't distingush between the two because s/he wouldn't
(at least not actively) remember the existence of the historic
difference.

 From that line of argument, it looks like a good idea to disallow
Hangul Jamos altogether. However, I'm not really that sure about it.
There are ample possibilities for spoofing inside a single script
even with modern letters. My favorite example is German and Hungarian
Umlauts. German uses a/o/u with two little dots or strokes above
(the official name is DIAERESIS). Hungarian uses the later two as
well as o/u with DOUBLE ACCENT. My guess is that a large percentage
of German readers wouldn't identify an o/u with double accent as
being different from an o/u with umlaut. Of course, we still
cannot prohibit o/u with double accent, because otherwise we
are excluding some part of Hungarian.

So this means I'm not completely sure yet whether we should
exclude Hangul Jamos at the protocol level.

Regards,    Martin.

At 18:53 08/10/31, Jaeyoun Kim wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>On behalf of Korean Agency for Technology and Standards (Ministry of
>Knowledge Economy) and National Internet Development Agency of Korea
>(NIDA), I would like to submit this comment on the Unicode Codepoints
>and IDNA Internet-Draft (draft-ietf-idnabis-tables-02.txt).
>
>Please find the attached comment.
>
>Regards,
>Jaeyoun Kim
>National Internet Development Agency of Korea (NIDA)
>
>Content-Type: application/pdf;name="2008-10-31 - KATS Comments on the
>Unicode Codepoints and IDNA Internet-Draft.pdf"
>X-Attachment-Id: f_fmyncdb00
>Content-Disposition: attachment;filename="2008-10-31 - KATS Comments on the
>Unicode Codepoints and IDNA Internet-Draft.pdf"
>
>_______________________________________________
>Idna-update mailing list
>Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp

_______________________________________________
Idna-update mailing list
Idna-update at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update