Re: [Idna-update] IDNA and combining sequences

["Asmus Freytag (c)" <[e-mail]>]

I was not centrally involved in these discussions, but knowing a bit 
about the different backgrounds and frames of reference of the 
participants I would not be surprised to learn that there was a certain 
amount of miscommunication leading to some fundamental disconnect in 
understanding....

However, independent of the details of what may have been exchanged a 
decade ago, I strongly  suspect that going over that ground is going to 
do little in terms of helping to make progress forward.

Instead, the sole question we should be asking is what can we do to 
effectively improve the experience involving IDNs.

A./

On 3/10/2018 8:24 AM, Mark Davis ☕️ wrote:
> >> We were given a different explanation and answer to our questions, 
> one much closer to "there is no problem and will be no problem in  the 
> future, so don't worry - no special rules are needed".
> > Correct. Being on the receiving side of the messages, and one of the 
> persons that asked the questions, yes, we asked, they responded...
>
> I'm mystified as to who exactly you think said "there is no problem 
> and will be no problem in the future" (or words to that effect), since 
> I can't imagine any Unicode expert saying that NFC, NFKC, or the 
> then-proposed IDNA 2008 solves the problem of visually visually 
> indistinguishable or confusing characters. In fact, there are many 
> emails on 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=idna-update NFKC 
> making it clear that NFKC reduces, but does not close to solving that 
> issue. And the same for the then-proposed context rules.
>
> So I'm guessing that there was a misunderstanding as to the problem 
> being discussed.
>
> Can you point to the email(s) on this list from a Unicode expertthat 
> you would characterize as responding that "there is no problem and 
> will be no problem in  the future, so don't worry - no special rules 
> are needed" ? (Of course, it needn't be those exact words — I just 
> want to figure out what was the foundation for your statement.)
>
>
> Mark
> //
>
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Patrik Fältström <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     On 9 Mar 2018, at 12:27, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>     > * Your explanation below is very helpful, at least to me.
>
>     Me too.
>
>     > I am
>     > confident that, if it was what we were given when we started the
>     IDNA2008 design, some of the rules would have reflected it.   We
>     were given a different explanation and answer to our questions,
>     one much closer to "there is no problem and will be no problem in 
>     the future, so don't worry - no special rules are needed".
>
>     Correct. Being on the receiving side of the messages, and one of
>     the persons that asked the questions, yes, we asked, they responded...
>
>     > The question is what to do now.  If we were to decide that your
>     discussion would made a good addition to the protocol, we would
>     run into at least two problems.  One is that we promised the
>     registry community that there would be no more disruptive
>     > changes and, at least as important, the Unicode Consortium
>     > outrage at our altering the way a handful of code points were
>     treated would presumably be much greater if we were to make a
>     change that would invalidate a large number of labels that might
>     now be registered and in use somewhere in the tree.  Another is
>     the problem that started this thread -- there appears to be no
>     energy in the IETF to consider and process changes to IDNA, even
>     fairly trivial clarifications.
>
>     I think we should do some scenario planning here. Remember that we
>     do not have a world where IDNA2008 based on Unicode 6.x is what
>     people use. People use all different kind of mix between IDNA2008,
>     IDNA2003 and Unicode versions. I have myself worked with the curl
>     library (that uses libidn) and to be honest, I do not think people
>     KNOW what they use. Or they know, and they know they violate the
>     rules. For the contracted parties, they have the LGR coming down
>     the road anyways, so...
>
>     And *if* we go down this path, is it "enough" to do in the LGR
>     (i.e. ICANN) or should IETF do some adoption (and W3C?), or should
>     IETF say "we can move forward in a more safe way AS WE KNOW ICANN
>     DO LGR"...
>
>     Or...
>
>        Patrik
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     IDNA-UPDATE mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idna-update>
>
>