Re: [I18ndir] I18ndir last call review of draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping-06

[Marc Blanchet <[e-mail]>]

On 6 Mar 2020, at 0:46, John C Klensin wrote:

>
>>> In addition, given increasing trend on the web 9at
>>> least) to do exactly what TUS says to do, which is to
>>> normalize only at comparison time rather than trying to carry
>>> strings around in normalized form, the application of that
>>> attribute all almost all text-type values may be
>>> inappropriate. I can find no evidence in the I-D that those
>>> issues were considered; the document should not progress
>>> until they are.
>>
>> Right, there are many other contexts where it makes sense to
>> keep the data as submitted and not to force normalization.
>
>> However, this does not appear to be one of them.
>
> For the many fields that do not appear to be IDN labels, why
> not?  From skimming the document, I'd assume that the IDN labels
> should be required to be in NFC but that a normalization
> requirement is probably inappropriate for most other fields,
> especially those fields that appear to be free text
> descriptions.  Which ones probably requires a field-by-field
> analysis.

My reading of the draft is that many fields were just of « documentary 
nature » and no clear need (well, at least it was not specified 
anywhere in the draft) for sorting, searching or comparing, hence no 
real requirement for normalization. We don’t want to impose stuff 
which is not needed.

We have to remember the intent of the draft: this is essentially 
documenting an archive file format. Generated by registrars and 
registries to be sent to a custodian in case of a need to restart the 
service elsewhere. This is really not a protocol per se, it is an 
archive file format.

Marc.