Special case for Bidi in draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-14

Matitiahu Allouche matial at il.ibm.com
Sun Sep 6 20:56:20 CEST 2009

Since nobody answered Paul Hoffman's note attached below, I will 
contribute my 2 cents.

a) Personally, I fail to find a relation between the mentioned paragraph 
from section 5.4 and inter-label checking.

b) Anyway, I am for making the Bidi checking on lookup a MUST.  Otherwise, 
registrars may be only too tempted to take liberties with the Bidi rules 
when assigning domain names.

Shalom (Regards),  Mati
           Bidi Architect
           Globalization Center Of Competency - Bidirectional Scripts
           IBM Israel
           Phone: +972 2 5888802    Fax: +972 2 5870333    Mobile: +972 52 

Paul Hoffman <phoffman at imc.org>
John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com>, idna-update at alvestrand.no
Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>, ck at nic.museum, Matitiahu 
Allouche/Israel/IBM at IBMIL, Alireza Saleh <saleh at nic.ir>
29/08/2009 18:38
Special case for Bidi in draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-14

At 3:42 AM -0400 8/29/09, John C Klensin wrote:
> > The paragraph in section 5.4 that starts "This test may..." is
>> out of date because the rules in the Bidi document no longer
>> do inter-label checking. The whole paragraph can be removed.
>> In the light of this, does the WG want to change the
>> requirement level for checking Bidi on lookup from SHOULD to
>> MUST? Given the above, I see no reason why not.
>I need WG input or instructions from the Chair on both of the
>suggestions above.

It would be good to hear from Harald and Cary and Mati and Alireza and any 
other folks who have been dealing with Bidi more seriously than I. It 
would be wrong for us to have a "special case" that downgrades an 
interoperability requirement that is not necessary.

My reading of this last part of the requirements list of 5.4 is that the 
only reason that it is not a MUST is that there might be special 
cross-label bidi considerations. I thought that those have been removed 
from the bidi document. I could be wrong on either of these, but if I'm 
right, we can simplify 5.4 in protocol by just making the last bullet a 
MUST like the rest of them.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090906/bf05b3b1/attachment.htm 

More information about the Idna-update mailing list