Re: [idn] Re: process

[Erik van der Poel <[e-mail]>]

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> The issue has been discussed at length. See
> the "Security Considerations" of RFC 3490.

It is true that some of the issues are pointed out by that section, so 
the registries and application developers have to pay attention. But one 
  might argue that we have recently been discussing a new *class* of 
homographs. The RFC mentions "multiple scripts" and one and l. These two 
refer to letters such as Cyrillic small 'a' and digits (the "one"). But 
the slash homograph recently raised on this list might be considered to 
be a new class of homograph (punctuation), not specifically indicated in 
the RFC. Not only is this type of character different from letters and 
digits, it is arguably even more dangerous than the script-based 
(Cyrillic) attack, since it can be done in a domain label that is not 
under the control of the registries. So that first line of defense is 
not there, and we must rely totally on the apps, and there are many.

One could argue that a new document should be published and widely 
circulated to warn about this new kind of attack. One of my questions is 
whether this warning should appear in a new version of the RFC, or in a 
separate document. Alternatively, it may be decided that this type of 
homograph is so different and so dangerous that a new version of the 
protocol that prohibits these characters, with a new ACE prefix, should 
be created. I don't know.

Also, the "multiple scripts" wording does not specifically cover the 
all-Cyrillic case. So that part could be tightened up too.

By the way, the RFC's Security section includes the following:

    No security issues such as string length increases or new
    allowed values are introduced by the encoding process or the use of
    these encoded values, apart from those introduced by the ACE encoding
    itself.

What does this mean, exactly? Are any new allowed values introduced by 
the ACE encoding? This part could be clearer.

Also, O and 0 are mentioned, but is this technically correct? I mean, 
aren't uppercase ASCIIs supposed to be lowercased? I'm sorry if I'm 
wrong about this part.

> Nothing new in the recent announces, just
> sensation papers.

Again, I think the slash homograph might be new. Do you have evidence to 
suggest that it *was* considered by the WG or anybody else?

> The Powers Above require that Something should be done

Have you seen any indication of this?

Thanks,

Erik