Integration of BIDI into the protocol
vint at google.com
Tue Sep 1 04:58:20 CEST 2009
I think your first formulation is the more general. You will recall
that we explicitly chose not to introduce inter-label BIDI testing.
On Aug 31, 2009, at 9:33 PM, James Mitchell wrote:
>>> As a registry, should I allow registration of the name 123abc.RTL?
>> My recommendation is that you should (as a registry) establish policy
>> that says "it is not allowed". The protocol does not require you to
>> do so.
>>> As an application, should I lookup the name 123abc.RTL?
>> The protocol does not say that you can't. For the obvious reasons, I
>> think it's a legitimate implementor decision to decide not to.
> I was of the assumption that the lookup protocol was no more
> restrictive than the registration protocol.
> I propose that one of the following changes is made to draft-ietf-
> idnabis-protocol-14. The first to clarify that registries are
> expected to establish policy for this specific issue (or potentially
> be suprised if they do not), and the second to prevent such labels
> entirely. I am leaning towards the latter only because the protocol
> states such names SHOULD be rejected in lookup.
> 126.96.36.199. Labels Containing Characters Written Right to Left
> If the proposed label contains any characters that are written from
> right to left it MUST meet the BIDI criteria [IDNA2008-BIDI].
> Note that a label containing no characters written from right to
> may fail to meet the BIDI criteria when in a name having at least
> label containing right to left characters. It is expected that
> registries establish policy for the registration of such labels.
> If the proposed label, or the name in which it belongs, contains any
> characters that are written from right to left then the proposed
> MUST meet the BIDI criteria.
> I welcome any updates to the wording of these changes.
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update