comments on draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi

[Vint Cerf]

we decided not to do INTER-LABEL checking. All the checks are INTRA- 
label.

v

On Aug 6, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Alireza Saleh wrote:

> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>> When integrating comments into text, some additional notes....
>>
>>
>>
>>>> 12) The next sentence says: "In a domain name consisting of only
>>>> LDH-labels and labels that pass the test, the requirements of  
>>>> Section
>>>> 3 are satisfied as long as a label that starts with an ASCII digit
>>>> does not come after a right-to-left label that ends in a digit."
>>>> This is not true.  See example b above.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You are right. This needs to be documented; I did not test this  
>>> case.
>>>
>>>
>> I changed the sentence to say "the requirements of Section
>>
>> 3 are satisfied as long as a label that starts with an ASCII digit
>> does not come after a right-to-left label" - I think this is true  
>> for all cases.
>>
> I think we came to the consensus during the Dublin meeting that  
> IDNABIS
> working group should stay within the scope of labels and it  
> shouldn't do
> the intra-label checking.Bringing the new concept ( intra label  
> checking
> )  for domains will put registries into trouble.
> If the working group decides to do the intra-label checking then we  
> can
> think about some more complex rules such as : if a domain starts with
> AL, then some of the current restrictions can be ignored however, I
> think we can change the paragraph  which discusses about prohibition  
> of
> mixing the AN and EN characters in a label to something like  " AN and
> EN cannot be mixed within a label if the labels doesn't start with  
> AL " .
>
> I would also recommend the removal of the text from bidi that talks
> about label uniqueness, the text itself reduces the accuracy of the
> protocol and it may cause some inconsistency, as Harald mentioned  
> during
> the IETF meeting , they have a script that tests all possible cases  
> and
> those problematic cases have been already resolved by some accurate
> rules, so if in the future we understand that something is missing,  
> then
> an explicit rule regarding them should be  added to the protocol. The
> label uniqueness  can also be moved to rationale document to cover all
> cases including homographs.
>
>
> Alireza
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update