Re: [Idna-update] Genart telechat review of draft-faltstrom-unicode11-08

Martin J. Dürst <> Wed, 20 March 2019 04:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5465B127AC2 for <>; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 21:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.923
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.923 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e8r2OFnnngK6 for <>; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 21:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5417127990 for <>; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 21:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1-it-aoyama-ac-jp; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=rL9yyXkMoSc54oiUHYVMJhEqINVq2VyjgfGyLeFPNjI=; b=cDWy6dOheOo6zJaI2h9XD9yDdFC9Pil+VF6ky7BA/8nXMYv0g0dL2G83u5KTnvvGv209JO7+ajRztUHqO2++HNb2AGSvQCLsbnT8t8jhoNJAsrN3S9HO6Nz2GymM4ZYZcRyDb1N9Ltwl0l8d7Uy0YF+sEfyrub7h4Q+eyIGoS/8=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1709.14; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 04:39:52 +0000
Received: from ([fe80::98b6:d90e:9ae7:302]) by ([fe80::98b6:d90e:9ae7:302%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1709.015; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 04:39:52 +0000
From: =?utf-8?B?TWFydGluIEouIETDvHJzdA==?= <>
To: "Asmus Freytag (c)" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Idna-update] Genart telechat review of draft-faltstrom-unicode11-08
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 04:39:52 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <458987D953A5B3227D3A791F@PSB> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-clientproxiedby: (2603:1096:402:1::18) To (2603:1096:404:12e::18)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 290f1b61-ecf3-44d2-f9ac-08d6acee17fb
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(7021145)(8989299)(4534185)(7022145)(4603075)(4627221)(201702281549075)(8990200)(7048125)(7024125)(7025125)(7027125)(7023125)(5600127)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:TYAPR01MB5230;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: TYAPR01MB5230:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-forefront-prvs: 098291215C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(136003)(366004)(346002)(376002)(39830400003)(396003)(199004)(189003)(8936002)(966005)(26005)(6486002)(6246003)(6506007)(102836004)(85202003)(76176011)(106356001)(6436002)(25786009)(53936002)(2906002)(5660300002)(66574012)(53546011)(31686004)(6306002)(93886005)(71190400001)(68736007)(6512007)(186003)(229853002)(71200400001)(2501003)(14454004)(386003)(31696002)(85182001)(14444005)(81156014)(110136005)(256004)(8676002)(81166006)(97736004)(99286004)(446003)(3846002)(305945005)(11346002)(508600001)(66066001)(2616005)(786003)(6116002)(486006)(476003)(105586002)(52116002)(74482002)(7736002)(86362001)(316002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:TYAPR01MB5230;; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:0; MX:1;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: cqZiZ/LmSRdkasnsFvPDCLvUVP3T+SqBFTn5xRNDVa/7jU7+LUeocz6zrtYgsiIw2WMiWTmEtJ/CC3coMGT52pRLji7Y1PzqpOv4fuQiWdpv3Ry///XKMWuRQxzYZbg/V40pHyIYK7DVP+VvDk9tFK9ikMHKGIuCMVoVrlJNDKoyD7t6XEiEPCVcBasyXzrs9M9lUhLCNQ+2tHTJf0trIHFYuIdfDT3JALB3zXrAAvKcCnZAkiklyg/IdR6BeMn4Gw+VeCHyV7p1SSwS63dIsX1lt4HObypvldNNnaye1gAUerE611OlchmBSdNAuLHTqBiWXoebVWZ7aSTl6PdlnxzpALto5WU6AdynA95OHqCvxVfHEMKwphzWfb/1sXEbK33MIbYlasB//OTaWVdhBrW9+lGTiRGltmXLaZn+G7o=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 290f1b61-ecf3-44d2-f9ac-08d6acee17fb
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 20 Mar 2019 04:39:52.5908 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: e02030e7-4d45-463e-a968-0290e738c18e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: TYAPR01MB5230
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idna-update] Genart telechat review of draft-faltstrom-unicode11-08
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Internationalized Domain Names in Applications \(IDNA\) implementation and update discussions" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 04:39:57 -0000

Hello Asmus,

On 2019/03/20 01:24, Asmus Freytag (c) wrote:
> On 3/19/2019 3:19 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>> In the 6.0.0 timeframe, there were both more actual changes (3), and
>> there was one change where we moved from PVALID to DISALLOWED, which I
>> personally think is the tougher one (see
>> And looking at the
>> code chart at, one may even
>> reasonably argue that keeping U+19DA NEW TAI LUE THAM DIGIT ONE would
>> have been the better choice, because when one compares U+19B1 NEW TAI
>> LUE VOWEL SIGN AA and U+19D1 NEW TAI LUE DIGIT ONE and finds them having
>> (at least on first approximation) the same glyph shape, one can easily
>> guess that U+19DA NEW TAI LUE THAM_DIGIT_  ONE is used (this is only a
>> quick conjection which would have to be confirmed) exactly in situations
>> where the distinction between letters and digits is important, of which
>> we know domain names are a good example.
> Here's a telling example of how a formal problem can be practically 
> irrelevant:
> I looked up New Tai Lue on Omniglot:
> "The new script is used exclusively in Jinghong, so could be called the
>    New Jinghong Tai Lue script, and is used for shop and street signs.
> *Fe**w people can read it*. "   (Emphasis mine).
> If you read the full text you get the impression that the whole script
> represents a failed state-imposed "simplification". Unicode still needs
> to encode it, so that archival texts from the period between 1950 and 1980
> can be encoded, but it's surely of no practical relevance for domain names.

Interestingly enough, their page (at shows the U+19DA NEW TAI LUE 
_THAM_ DIGIT ONE glyph rather than the U+19D1 NEW TAI LUE DIGIT ONE 
glyph in the Numerals section.

Regards,   Martin.