[UA-discuss] FW: I-D Action: draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-00.txt

nalini.elkins at insidethestack.com nalini.elkins at insidethestack.com
Mon Mar 13 12:35:08 UTC 2017

>Pretty much all of the concerns regarding the character repertoire can be resolved and the registrar level if the registrars would ensure that they did not allow registrations of multiple domain variations that >might confuse their users.  Or if they bundled those registrations.

There is a potential conflict of interest here.   Registries want to sell as many domains as they can as that is how they make money.


Nalini Elkins
Inside Products, Inc.
(831) 659-8360

 ‎3/‎12/‎2017 7:33
 Mark Svancarek; UA-discuss at icann.org
 RE: [UA-discuss] FW: I-D Action:
 My concern is John’s emphasis on
 creating very restrictive character rule sets.
 The most restrictive rules created
 by IDNA2008 have been ignored because of user demand and
 backwards compatibility.  Eg: no-emoji in labels. 
 People want emoji, but IDNA2008
  doesn’t permit it.  Part of that is compatibility
 with the permitted IDNA2003 emoji, however there has also
 been demand for emoji characters newly added to
 I think that it is appropriate to
 remind registrars that they are responsible for creating
 sane rules for their spaces, but it is clear that users do
 not want to be tied to
  the most restrictive demands of IDNA2008. 
 Implementations appear to be settling on the Unicode
 provided idna data and I would much prefer to see the IETF
 standards point to the IDNA character sets provided by
 Unicode (while still encouraging registrars to
  do sane things that make sense for their
 A good example of something a
 registrar might want to consider could be something like
 ü.  Some spaces may allow ü without much restriction,
 however for .de, .ch, .at, etc.
  it might make sense to recognize that ü has an alternate
 ue spelling and to provide bundling or blocking of domains
 like müller.ch and mueller.ch.  That kind of rule is
 very domain/language specific.  Though it is not called
 out as some of the bidi rules are,
  the RFCs allow registrars to implement such a policy if it
 fits their purposes.  Of course many other behaviors
 are called out by the IDNA2008 rules.
 Pretty much all of the concerns
 regarding the character repertoire can be resolved and the
 registrar level if the registrars would ensure that they did
 not allow registrations
  of multiple domain variations that might confuse their
 users.  Or if they bundled those
 From: Richard Merdinger
 [mailto:rmerdinger at godaddy.com]
 Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 11:35 PM
 To: Edmon Chung <edmon at registry.asia>; Mark
 Svancarek <marksv at microsoft.com>;
 UA-discuss at icann.org
 Cc: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com>
 Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] FW: I-D Action:
 Agree, thanks for forwarding
 Mark  This was a very cogent statement of affairs
 relative to the closing out of known IDN issues (or our
 current inability to do so).
 I agree with Edmon in that I think
 the UA effort should strive to be a catalyst
 <ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org>
 on behalf of Edmon Chung <edmon at registry.asia>
 Date: Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 7:11 AM
 To: 'Mark Svancarek' <marksv at microsoft.com>,
 "UA-discuss at icann.org"
 <UA-discuss at icann.org>
 Cc: 'Shawn Steele' <Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com>
 Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] FW: I-D Action:
 Thanks for forwarding this
 This seems to be something useful
 for UA, perhaps we should work with the IDN team at ICANN
 (along with the communities networked from the LGR work) to
 see where we can best support.
 -----Original Message-----
 ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org]
 Behalf Of Mark Svancarek via
 Sent: Sunday, 12 March 2017 12:58
 UA-discuss at icann.org
 Cc: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com>
 Subject: [UA-discuss] FW: I-D
 Action: draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-00.txt
 FYI, too much stuff from John for
 me to dig into this a.m.
 -----Original Message-----
 From: Idna-update [mailto:idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no]
 On Behalf Of John
 C Klensin
 Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017
 8:25 AM
 idna-update at alvestrand.no
 Subject: FWD: I-D Action:
 For the information of those who
 may be watching this list but not the IETF
 announcement one...
 Asmus Freytag and I have started
 to put together a draft that addresses a problem
 with the IDNA2008 specs,
 specifically that we failed to make the responsibility
 registries to define code point
 and label acceptability rules that were considerably
 more narrow (and better understood
 by them) than the full set of labels allowed by
 RFC 5891-5893.  It
 doesn't actually change anything because that
 requirement is in
 the existing specs; it just makes
 (or tries to make) the requirements painfully clear to
 those who have been missing or
 misreading them.
 It also provides an explicit link
 between IDNA2008 requirements and ICANN work on
 repertoires and label generation
 rules without endorsing that work as more than one
 thoughtful approach that might be
 examined for either reference or inspiration.
 Comments (obviously) welcome.
 For anyone who might wonder, this
 document avoids the more controversial
 IDNA2008 issues including:
 * Multiple suggestions that we
 should add emoji, a subset of code points with
 General Category "So",
 to the list of code
 points allowed by
 IDNA.   There are many reasons to not do that
 but it seems clear that, at some
 point, the IETF will need to either document those
 reasons or make the
 change.  Volunteers to put together or work on a
 would be welcome.
 * The non-decomposing code point
 problem, formerly (and
 incorrectly) known as the Hamza
 problem.   There has been no
 discernable activity on this since
 the IAB Statement and LUCID BOF almost exactly
 two years ago.  I've
 further updated the working copy of
 unicode70 to cover additional
 cases and issues, but, in part because it is clearly
 inappropriate for a quick-patch
 individual submission, have been advised to not post
 it until we have a plan to make
 So far, there is no such plan.
 * The (IMO, growing) problem of
 multiple and inconsistent specifications for IDNs
 and IDN handling, with different
 ones being used in different higher-level protocols
 and areas of the
 Internet.  The use of different specifications and
 definitions creates
 opportunities for user and
 implementer confusion, interoperability difficulties,
 names that cannot be resolved
 under some circumstances, and various sorts of
 The specifications involved
 include IDNA2008, IDNA2003, assorted local
 to IDNA2003 that use versions of
 Stringprep locally updated to assorted versions of
 Unicode, and the various versions
 of UTR#46.  The latest version of the latter
 allows emoji along with other
 symbols.    A few months ago, I
 suggested to the IAB I18N program
 that a document be produced that at least
 pointed out the problems
 associated with multiple divergent specifications, but
 idea got no traction.
 It appears to me that, although
 almost everyone agrees that IDNs, and well- and
 clearly-functional IDNs, are
 important, virtually no one is willing to do the hard
 at least unless they are being
 supported by ICANN (disclosure: I am not) or
 organizations whose interests lie
 in selling names, preferably as many of them as
 possible (I have no support from
 any of them either).  Until and unless that
 I don't see much prospect for
 getting those other issues addressed in a way that
 might lead to consensus
 ---------- Forwarded Message
 Date: Saturday, March 11, 2017
 07:22 -0800
 internet-drafts at ietf.org
 i-d-announce at ietf.org
 Subject: I-D Action:
 A New Internet-Draft is available
 from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 : Internationalized Domain Names in
 Applications (IDNA): Registry
 Restrictions and Recommendations
 : John C Klensin
 Asmus Freytag
 Filename        :
 : 10
 Date            :
     The IDNA
 specifications for internationalized domain names
 combine    rules
 that determine the labels that are allowed in
 the DNS
 without    violating the protocol itself
 and an
 assignment of
 responsibility,    consistent with
 specifications, for determining
 the labels    that are allowed
 in particular
 zones.  Conformance to IDNA
 by    registries and
 other implementations requires
 both parts.  Experience strongly suggests that
 language describing those
 responsibility    was
 insufficiently clear to promote safe and
 interoperable use of
 the    specifications and that more
 and some specific examples
 would    have been
 helpful.  This
 specification updates the earlier
 ones to    provide that
 guidance and to correct some
 technical errors in the descriptions.  It does not
 the protocols and rules
 themselves    in
 any way.
 The IETF datatracker status page
 for this draft is:
 There's also a htmlized
 version available at:
 Please note that it may take a
 couple of minutes from the time of submission until
 the htmlized version and diff are
 available at tools.ietf.org.
 Internet-Drafts are also available
 by anonymous FTP at:
 I-D-Announce mailing list
 I-D-Announce at ietf.org
 Internet-Draft directories: 
 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or
 ---------- End Forwarded Message
 Idna-update mailing list
 Idna-update at alvestrand.no

More information about the UA-discuss mailing list