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

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Mon Sep 7 11:49:55 CEST 2009

I agree with Mati. I think in protocol, checking the BIDI constraints 
should just be a MUST. BIDI then can say (as it already does) that these 
constraints are essentially irrelevant for LTR-only domain names.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2009/09/07 3:56, Matitiahu Allouche wrote:
> 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
> 2554160
> From:
> Paul Hoffman<phoffman at imc.org>
> To:
> John C Klensin<klensin at jck.com>, idna-update at alvestrand.no
> Cc:
> Harald Alvestrand<harald at alvestrand.no>, ck at nic.museum, Matitiahu
> Allouche/Israel/IBM at IBMIL, Alireza Saleh<saleh at nic.ir>
> Date:
> 29/08/2009 18:38
> Subject:
> 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 out of date because the rules in the Bidi document no longer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.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update

#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp

More information about the Idna-update mailing list