MVALID (was Re: M-Label or MVALID, and dangers with mappings?)

Paul Hoffman phoffman at
Mon Apr 13 22:36:29 CEST 2009

At 4:25 PM -0400 4/13/09, John C Klensin wrote:
>--On Monday, April 13, 2009 15:42 -0400 Vint Cerf
><vint at> wrote:
>> if this is to be a separate document, this document still
>> needs to be considered a part of the specifications because
>> that is what we agreed to do in the last face/face working
>> group meeting: ie. to map on lookup while not mapping on
>> registration.
>I would still argue for a separate document on the grounds that
>we should define the canonical forms and protocol is a way
>calculated to be as stable as possible with as much opportunity
>for conformity as possible.

I agree with John on this *as long as* the protocol document is scrubbed of anything that makes the mapping optional. It is fine to say "you MUST do the mapping described in RFC TBD, and you MAY do additional mapping", similar to the way we handle the bidi checking (which I still think should be in the protocol document, and I still understand that the WG rough consensus went against).

More information about the Idna-update mailing list