Re: [Idna-update] [I18nrp] Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-unicode11-05.txt> (IDNA2008 and Unicode 11.0.0) to Informational RFC

Larry,

The theory about registries in the current IDNA RFCs was to
impose a strong requirement that they be conservative including,
but not limited to, understanding the scripts they are
permitting.  That requirement is, I believe, consistent with
both what you are saying and what Asmus appears to be saying on
that subject.   The details about how to best accomplish that--
to convince them to actually do so-- seem to be a more
complicated matter.  

As I've said in other, probably too-long, notes, most registries
who manage zones within an enterprise or other organization have
been fairly good about it; many of the second-level registries
and others whose business and operational model involves selling
names to unrelated parties have tended to adopt the least
restrictive policies they believe they can get away with.

Part of the problem with the IDNA RFCs is that the requirement
for registry conservatism and responsibility is too scattered
through several documents to come across as important as I think
we all believe it is.   draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis (now
expired, but waiting in the wings) was intended to address that
issue.  I haven't looked at the text for a while but strongly
suspect it does not identify and stress labels being
"re-enterable" and "retypable" as you suggest.   It should.  If
you don't mind taking a look at it, I'd appreciate recommended
text.   Or, if that isn't convenient, I'll try to remember to
say something when I next open the document.

thanks,
    john

--On Thursday, December 6, 2018 16:59 -0800 Larry Masinter
<LMM@acm.org> wrote:

> Registries should be conservative in the sense of advising
> their clients about the likely usability of the registered
> name among their target audience.
> I don't think the IDNA RFCs currently are conservative enough.
> As I've noted before, usability includes "re-enterable"
> (including "retypable") .
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: i18nRP <i18nrp-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Patrik
>> Fältström Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 2:44 AM
>> To: Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>
>> Cc: i18nrp@ietf.org; Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
>> Subject: Re: [I18nrp] Last Call:
>> <draft-faltstrom-unicode11-05.txt>
> (IDNA2008
>> and Unicode 11.0.0) to Informational RFC
>> 
>> On 5 Dec 2018, at 19:03, Asmus Freytag (c) wrote:
>> 
>> >> 
>> >>     3. Registries should not "just" allow all PVALID
>> >>     (etc.) code
> points, but also
>> include a conservative registration policy
>> >> 
>> > 
>> > add:
>> > 
>> > "as mandated in RFCs <get the IDNA RFC citations from John
>> > Klensin's
> draft
>> here>."
>> 
>> Correct, I blame my Swenglish dialect for the mistake in
>> wording I did.
>> 
>>    paf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> i18nRP mailing list
> i18nRP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp