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

Vint Cerf vint at google.com
Mon Sep 7 21:32:04 CEST 2009

I think Andrew and John make a good argument for not altering the  
treatment of BiDi rules, including the use of SHOULD vs MUST with regard
to checking.  It will be helpful to hear from others who have not  
spoken on
these points.


On Sep 7, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 06:46:12PM +1000, Wil Tan wrote:
>> I concur, especially given the fact that Bidi labels registered at  
>> lower
>> levels of the tree (thus outside the control of parent registries)  
>> could
>> possibly be used to render confusing domain names.
> Let us not open this debate again, please.  We have explicitly decided
> that confusability is not a criterion for acceptability.  Just because
> registries can act badly is not a reason to set protocol rules, and we
> have been quite clear that we expect registries to have a policy (even
> if that expectation is likely to be unrealised in practice).
> A
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at shinkuro.com
> Shinkuro, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update

More information about the Idna-update mailing list