jefsey at jefsey.com
Thu Dec 23 12:04:07 CET 2010
At 08:29 23/12/2010, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>Ken, thanks for this.
>What do others think?
I support all the comments of Ken, except "... The IETF considers it
important that the IDNA standard remain aligned with the Unicode Standard."
This is a negation of the former WG/IDNAbis charter and RFC 5892
which states: " It specifies a procedure, and not a table, of code
points so that the algorithm can be used to determine code point sets
independent of the version of Unicode that is in use".
IDNA2008 is deal with those who "design, use, and manage" the inside
and the outside of the Internet which is to be as much stable ad the
DNS is stable. This is for outside applications (eg. RFC 5895,
ML-DNS, etc.) to see their submissions resolved the same whatever the
date they were developed and deployed.
This may create difficulties. These difficulties may belong to :
- the "inside" of the Internet, the network side. They are to be
addressed by the IAB coming IDNA work to keep them transparent to the
- the "ouside", on the user side. They are to be addressed by the
emerging IUse community. This community is _not_ exclusively Internet
oriented. It needs and has started working on the preparation of an
ISO 10646 based cross-needs International Network Character Set that
will serve as a IUI (Intelligent Use Interface) reference. The INCS
is based upon RFC 5892. Its plans includes visual character
validation and IDv6 locale transcription tables.
As long as the entire IDNA architecture has not been securely
consolidated by the IAB or by grassroots practice, no application
developer should be proposed anything else than the RFC 5892 allowed
code points. In any case we deny the right to non-IUse SDOs to make
any assumption on the use of any code point. They are allowed or not
period. There are at least two projects we know of encyption
algorithms based on the INCS. IDNA2008 specifies the "inside" aspects
of the protocol and leaves open the "outside" aspects. Unicode and
IETF does not now the impact of unilateral changes of them on others
who trust them to respect the rules. PVALID must stay unchanged.
Anyway, I have difficulties understanding how a private submission
can be standard track and could be partly override a close dedicated
WG standard track document set. This kind of suggested update is
similar to the job of Michael Everson for langtags, except that the
langtags table maintenance is described in an RFC (eventhought it is
not respected). Maintaining RFC 5892 was never considered, no IETF
job was ever discussed, etc. the IUse "group" would have determinedly
Please, let no divide the Internet again on the Unicode issue we have
solved. IETF RFCs and Unicode Versions are "independent" (RFC 5892).
More information about the Idna-update