AW: Sharp-S and Final Sigma Consensus Call Results

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at
Fri Dec 11 07:45:47 CET 2009

For the record, I agree with Mark. There may be some variation in 
transition strategy if those strategies are compatible with each other, 
or if the strategies are adapted to the linguistic situation (I have 
argued that immediate and straightforward bundling may be more 
appropriate for ς than for ß), but we should do everything we can to 
send a very clear message where necessary to avoid fragmentation or 

Regards,   Martin.

On 2009/12/11 2:16, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
> While we could all declare Mission Accomplished, and push this out the door
> as is, if there is no viable transition strategy and the best implementers
> can do to support their customers in avoiding compatibility and security
> problems is to map, then they will map--no matter what the consensus among
> the thirty-odd individuals in this WG is.
> If a viable transition strategy can be formulated for avoiding problems
> during the transition, I don't think there is any problem with having these
> 4 characters be PVALID. That strategy needs to be part of the IDNA
> specification, so that we don't get dozens of *different* transition
> strategies. It appears to me that we are still in the midst of that
> discussion, because it never got serious attention beforehand. So closing
> off such a discussion would be premature, no matter how sick and tired we
> are of the IDNA issues.
> Mark
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 22:37, "Martin J. Dürst"<duerst at>wrote:
>> Hello John, others,
>> I agree with half of Shawn, namely that this should be a MUST NOT.
>> The reason is that there have been many people on this list that say
>> that this is a really bad idea, but on the other hand, there have been
>> serious proposals (read TRs) to just do that.
>> Regards,    Martin.
>> On 2009/12/10 6:18, John C Klensin wrote:
>>> --On Wednesday, December 09, 2009 21:40 +0100 Alexander
>>> Mayrhofer<alexander.mayrhofer at>   wrote:
>>>>>> I am supporting PVALID for both Sharp-S and Final Sigma,
>>>>>> given that mapping of PVALID characters is disallowed.
>>>>> Mapping of PVALID characters is *not* disallowed in
>>>>> draft-ietf-idnabis-mappings-05.
>>>> I understand. An i don't think draft-ietf-idnabis-mappings
>>>> should be the place where mapping of PVALID characters should
>>>> be disallowed - it's an Informational document.
>>>> The rule would need to be in one of the Standards Track
>>>> documents.
>>> Since I'm trying to look at text this afternoon and evening, is
>>> there agreement that it would be wise to add a "SHOULD NOT
>>> change the interpretation of valid strings by mapping PVALID
>>> characters to anything else" to the portion of Protocol where
>>> mapping is mentioned, or should (sic) I leave well enough alone?
>>> If the former, is that a correct statement of the proposition?
>>> Note that such a statement would make Sharp-S to "ss" mapping
>>> not-fully-conformant to IDNA2008, even though "SHOULD" does
>>> leave an opening...
>>> Vint?
>>>       john
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Idna-update mailing list
>>> Idna-update at
>> --
>> #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
>> #-#   mailto:duerst at
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at

#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#   mailto:duerst at

More information about the Idna-update mailing list