Special case for Bidi in draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-14
saleh at nic.ir
Tue Sep 8 04:16:08 CEST 2009
I don't see much difference between MUST and SHOULD, as I believe it is
better to keep the protocol documents less restrictive I vote for
SHOULD. However I think, the BIDI checks will be always performed if
Vint Cerf wrote:
> 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
>>> levels of the tree (thus outside the control of parent registries)
>>> 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).
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs at shinkuro.com
>> Shinkuro, Inc.
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update