From: ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mark Svancarek via UA-discuss
Sent: maandag 13 maart 2017 13:15
To: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>; Richard Merdinger <rmerdinger@godaddy.com>; Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia>; UA-discuss@icann.org
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] FW: I-D Action: draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-00.txt

At igf this year John basically argued that no one should use EAI because it's confusing for non-ascii users, and people in other zones might as well just get on the bus and use ascii for their email addresses, too. It was odd, though educational.

So I am not especially surprised to see John proposing more restrictions.

Sent from my Windows Phone

My concern is John’s emphasis on creating very restrictive character rule sets.

 

The most restrictive rules created by IDNA2008 have been ignored because of user demand and backwards compatibility.  Eg: no-emoji in labels.  People want emoji, but IDNA2008 doesn’t permit it.  Part of that is compatibility with the permitted IDNA2003 emoji, however there has also been demand for emoji characters newly added to Unicode.

 

I think that it is appropriate to remind registrars that they are responsible for creating sane rules for their spaces, but it is clear that users do not want to be tied to the most restrictive demands of IDNA2008.  Implementations appear to be settling on the Unicode provided idna data and I would much prefer to see the IETF standards point to the IDNA character sets provided by Unicode (while still encouraging registrars to do sane things that make sense for their domains).

 

A good example of something a registrar might want to consider could be something like ü.  Some spaces may allow ü without much restriction, however for .de, .ch, .at, etc. it might make sense to recognize that ü has an alternate ue spelling and to provide bundling or blocking of domains like müller.ch and mueller.ch.  That kind of rule is very domain/language specific.  Though it is not called out as some of the bidi rules are, the RFCs allow registrars to implement such a policy if it fits their purposes.  Of course many other behaviors are called out by the IDNA2008 rules.

 

Pretty much all of the concerns regarding the character repertoire can be resolved and the registrar level if the registrars would ensure that they did not allow registrations of multiple domain variations that might confuse their users.  Or if they bundled those registrations.

 

-Shawn

 

 

Agree, thanks for forwarding Mark  This was a very cogent statement of affairs relative to the closing out of known IDN issues (or our current inability to do so).

 

I agree with Edmon in that I think the UA effort should strive to be a catalyst here.

 

--Rich

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org] On

Behalf Of Mark Svancarek via UA-discuss

Sent: Sunday, 12 March 2017 12:58 PM

To: UA-discuss@icann.org

Cc: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>

Subject: [UA-discuss] FW: I-D Action: draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-00.txt

FYI, too much stuff from John for me to dig into this a.m.

-----Original Message-----

From: Idna-update [mailto:idna-update-bounces@alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of John

C Klensin

Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 8:25 AM

To: idna-update@alvestrand.no

Subject: FWD: I-D Action: draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-00.txt

Hi.

For the information of those who may be watching this list but not the IETF

announcement one...

Asmus Freytag and I have started to put together a draft that addresses a problem

with the IDNA2008 specs, specifically that we failed to make the responsibility of

registries to define code point and label acceptability rules that were considerably

more narrow (and better understood by them) than the full set of labels allowed by

RFC 5891-5893.  It doesn't actually change anything because that requirement is in

the existing specs; it just makes (or tries to make) the requirements painfully clear to

those who have been missing or misreading them.

It also provides an explicit link between IDNA2008 requirements and ICANN work on

repertoires and label generation rules without endorsing that work as more than one

thoughtful approach that might be examined for either reference or inspiration.

Comments (obviously) welcome.

For anyone who might wonder, this document avoids the more controversial

IDNA2008 issues including:

* Multiple suggestions that we should add emoji, a subset of code points with

General Category "So", to the list of code

points allowed by IDNA.   There are many reasons to not do that

but it seems clear that, at some point, the IETF will need to either document those

reasons or make the change.  Volunteers to put together or work on a document

would be welcome.

* The non-decomposing code point problem, formerly (and

incorrectly) known as the Hamza problem.   There has been no

discernable activity on this since the IAB Statement and LUCID BOF almost exactly

two years ago.  I've further updated the working copy of draft-klensin-idna-5892upd-

unicode70 to cover additional cases and issues, but, in part because it is clearly

inappropriate for a quick-patch individual submission, have been advised to not post

it until we have a plan to make progress.

So far, there is no such plan.

* The (IMO, growing) problem of multiple and inconsistent specifications for IDNs

and IDN handling, with different ones being used in different higher-level protocols

and areas of the Internet.  The use of different specifications and definitions creates

opportunities for user and implementer confusion, interoperability difficulties, domain

names that cannot be resolved under some circumstances, and various sorts of

attacks.

The specifications involved include IDNA2008, IDNA2003, assorted local "updates"

to IDNA2003 that use versions of Stringprep locally updated to assorted versions of

Unicode, and the various versions of UTR#46.  The latest version of the latter

explicitly

allows emoji along with other symbols.    A few months ago, I

suggested to the IAB I18N program that a document be produced that at least

pointed out the problems associated with multiple divergent specifications, but the

idea got no traction.

It appears to me that, although almost everyone agrees that IDNs, and well- and

clearly-functional IDNs, are important, virtually no one is willing to do the hard work,

at least unless they are being supported by ICANN (disclosure: I am not) or

organizations whose interests lie in selling names, preferably as many of them as

possible (I have no support from any of them either).  Until and unless that changes,

I don't see much prospect for getting those other issues addressed in a way that

might lead to consensus documents.

      john

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

Date: Saturday, March 11, 2017 07:22 -0800

From: internet-drafts@ietf.org

To: i-d-announce@ietf.org

Subject: I-D Action: draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

         Title           : Internationalized Domain Names in

Applications (IDNA): Registry Restrictions and Recommendations

Authors         : John C Klensin

                           Asmus Freytag

        Filename        : draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-00.txt

        Pages           : 10

        Date            : 2017-03-11

Abstract:

    The IDNA specifications for internationalized domain names

combine    rules that determine the labels that are allowed in

the DNS without    violating the protocol itself and an

assignment of responsibility,    consistent with earlier

specifications, for determining the labels    that are allowed

in particular zones.  Conformance to IDNA by    registries and

other implementations requires both parts.  Experience strongly suggests that the

language describing those

responsibility    was insufficiently clear to promote safe and

interoperable use of the    specifications and that more details

and some specific examples would    have been helpful.  This

specification updates the earlier ones to    provide that

guidance and to correct some technical errors in the descriptions.  It does not alter

the protocols and rules

themselves    in any way.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis/

There's also a htmlized version available at:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-00

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until

the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________

I-D-Announce mailing list

I-D-Announce@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce

Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or

ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---------- End Forwarded Message ----------

_______________________________________________

Idna-update mailing list

Idna-update@alvestrand.no

http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update