[apps-discuss] CONTEXTJ in TLD DNS-Labels (draft-liman-tld-names-05)

Behnam Esfahbod <behnam@esfahbod.info> Thu, 30 June 2011 20:56 UTC

Return-Path: <behnam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BCAE11E80AA for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.426
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.551, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qfmfQ9-X1+94 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 951D411E80A7 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iye7 with SMTP id 7so2882949iye.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id :subject:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PG8GFuqUg/PZb404puQwaf6Xvj3crT4AHW4P8hBcEzA=; b=grhY5zOgk4/XUWjcY9Usp5rm1CTo8Uv1nqLSxWmGLNrf6Z/+vgiwd8dlo7227BbL3V 3GPOl7rtuW+Vgl6vb4iLpKWvGMR5cGYZLl8BHyQCrkqjKE2gujaRqhhmacqiiEz0fiFK NG6lmBcmuNDEbDyNKRWsoAbhCFW0FLjtIEvj8=
Received: by 10.231.202.200 with SMTP id ff8mr2016395ibb.145.1309467402107; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: behnam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.231.15.139 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:56:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Behnam Esfahbod <behnam@esfahbod.info>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:56:02 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: cQEHrX2KYxVgX8RE8_CFXN3gdJg
Message-ID: <BANLkTinOKHXpVXL_jXBszGyEGswMybuVnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: apps-discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [apps-discuss] CONTEXTJ in TLD DNS-Labels (draft-liman-tld-names-05)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:56:43 -0000

Hello,

The restriction rules of the latest draft for "Top Level Domain Name
Specification", section 4 [1], is unfortunately very restrictive for
some languages, including Persian language (in Arabic script).

"""
  2.  the derived property value of all code points, as defined by
      [RFC5890], is PVALID;

  3.  the general category of all code points, is one of { Ll, Lo, Lm,
      Mn }.
"""

These restrictions are simply ignoring the characters with CONTEXTJ
derived property value, which was added to IDNA2008 protocol to
support Persian (and some Indic languages) in domain name labels [2].
Restricting TLD DNS-labels to only PVALID characters makes it
impossible to write very basic
words of Persian language. For example, "خانه‌ها" (English: houses)
and "کوه‌ها" (mountains) which are basic Persian words include U+200C
(ZERO WIDTH NON-JOINER or ZWNJ) and it is impossible to write those
words in Unicode without using ZWNJ.

IDNA2003 didn't support ZWNJ in lables and that practically made the
standard broken for Persian language. Now that this problem has been
resolved, we expect that TLD DNS-Labels also benefit from the effort
that has been put into the new standard and allow the CONTEXTJ
characters, specially U+200C (ZWNJ), in TLD DNS-Labels.

Hereby, I would like to request reconsidering the restriction rules of
TLD DNS-Labels and to allow characters with CONTEXTJ derived property
value in the labels. (Of course the IDNA2008 contextual restrictions
for CONTEXTJ characters must apply.)

Thanks in advance,
-Behnam Esfahbod
ISOC and ICANN TLD Variant Issue Project, Arabic-Script Case Study Team member

1: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liman-tld-names-05#section-4
2: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5894#section-3.1.2