From jothan at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 00:33:41 2017 From: jothan at gmail.com (Jothan Frakes) Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 17:33:41 -0700 Subject: [UA-discuss] SAC095 - SSAC Advisory on the Use of Emoji in Domain In-Reply-To: References: <99788BB4-5229-4114-AFAA-047241EBF673@icann.org> <3F777ED7-255C-4BD4-9AC7-DE99F9D6BC1C@lboro.ac.uk> <20170531155930.fgdwhdnyg4fw6tot@mx4.yitter.info> <809E3A23-538D-457A-8299-44930D497784@lboro.ac.uk> Message-ID: I think emoji is fascinating and potentially interesting to watch, and am not suggesting that emoji, once a bit more settled and standardized by those respective groups, may drift into our orbit. Rather, I am suggesting that we not allow it to distract us while working the existing issues. On May 31, 2017 09:51, "Mark Svancarek via UA-discuss" wrote: > Your explanation makes sense to me. > > -----Original Message----- > From: ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] > On Behalf Of Andre Schappo > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:49 AM > To: ua-discuss at icann.org > Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] SAC095 - SSAC Advisory on the Use of Emoji in > Domain > > > > On 31 May 2017, at 16:59, Andrew Sullivan > wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:49:21PM +0000, Andre Schappo wrote: > >> My standard practice is to make, whenever possible, my links WYSIWYG. I > think it a good practice. Sometimes it is not possible because of overly > long and complex URLs. > >> > > > > It's never actually been a recommendation from hypertext people, > > however. They've always suggested that you should put links liberally > > in running text that is in itself nicely readable. So, > > > > In a previous post, we discussed UA? > > > > as opposed to > > > > In a previous post, which you can find at > href="target">target, we discussed UA ? > > > > Why do you think it's a good practice? It makes for very stilted > > text. > > > > A > > > > User reassurance - knowing the exact address of the website they will > visit if they click the link. > Transparency - stating clearly and exactly the address of the website they > will visit if they click the link. > User feedback - Users can visually verify that the address of the website > they land on after clicking the link is indeed what was stated. > > I consider it makes for better security because the address is upfront for > visual inspection/examination and not hidden behind some text string/image. > > There is much discussion/arguments on IDNs and phishing/spoofing because > of, for instance, confusables. > > I consider spoofing/phishing is more easily achieved with links hiding > behind text/images without going to the effort of employing and registering > IDNs containing confusables. > > eg the honest and genuine bank > > I too used to hide links behind text/images but for about 4/5 years now I > have been making links explicit as I consider it better security and better > practice. One way in which I retain reading flow is to treat the link as a > full stop ie terminating a sentence. Also, one can use links in a similar > manner to the way citations are used in academic papers > > Andr? Schappo > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marksv at microsoft.com Thu Jun 1 03:58:21 2017 From: marksv at microsoft.com (Mark Svancarek) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 03:58:21 +0000 Subject: [UA-discuss] SAC095 - SSAC Advisory on the Use of Emoji in Domain In-Reply-To: <99edd17d-ba64-6775-d7ea-a43c61bb472c@ix.netcom.com> References: <99788BB4-5229-4114-AFAA-047241EBF673@icann.org> <99edd17d-ba64-6775-d7ea-a43c61bb472c@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Mojibake indeed! Here?s how it renders on Microsoft Edge on the latest Windows 10. [cid:image001.jpg at 01D2DA50.9864D6F0] From: ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Asmus Freytag Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 7:52 AM To: ua-discuss at icann.org Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] SAC095 - SSAC Advisory on the Use of Emoji in Domain On 5/28/2017 2:26 AM, Don Hollander wrote: FYI https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-095-en.pdf Looks like figure 2 is not emoji, but mojibake. Does it render correctly on anybody's system? [cid:image002.png at 01D2DA50.9864D6F0] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 26034 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 12795 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From dusan at dukes.in.rs Thu Jun 1 13:18:02 2017 From: dusan at dukes.in.rs (Dusan Stojicevic) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:18:02 +0200 Subject: [UA-discuss] SAC095 - SSAC Advisory on the Use of Emoji in Domain In-Reply-To: References: <99788BB4-5229-4114-AFAA-047241EBF673@icann.org> <3F777ED7-255C-4BD4-9AC7-DE99F9D6BC1C@lboro.ac.uk> <20170531155930.fgdwhdnyg4fw6tot@mx4.yitter.info> <809E3A23-538D-457A-8299-44930D497784@lboro.ac.uk>

Message-ID: <016401d2dad9$803549a0$809fdce0$@dukes.in.rs> Dear all, First, +1 for Jothan. Exactly. Secondly, people can write and make written conversation without using any of the smileys or emoji like signs, by simply using their alphabet. And we have big number of issues with letters, on all fields. On the other hand, emoji is there mainly for two reasons> to express the feelings more quickly (but often not clearly) in chats (or live, written conversation of any kind), and for fun. Both reasons are not essential to us like using different alphabet in domain names, or using long TLD names. From my previous life as editor-in-chief, my rule was very simple ? there are no smileys in texts. If you are an author and not expressed the opinion, meaning or joke right, smileys or emoji can?t help you and you must change this sentence/paragraph. Readers won?t lough because there is J at the end of the sentence, but because you wrote something funny. When (or maybe if) they come in our orbit, and we previously solve all essential issues, then we can consider it. Until then, let the ccTLDs, who ?dare? to use emoji in their tables, solve possible issues. Cheers, Dusan From: ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jothan Frakes Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 2:34 AM To: Mark Svancarek Cc: ua-discuss at icann.org Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] SAC095 - SSAC Advisory on the Use of Emoji in Domain I think emoji is fascinating and potentially interesting to watch, and am not suggesting that emoji, once a bit more settled and standardized by those respective groups, may drift into our orbit. Rather, I am suggesting that we not allow it to distract us while working the existing issues. On May 31, 2017 09:51, "Mark Svancarek via UA-discuss" > wrote: Your explanation makes sense to me. -----Original Message----- From: ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org ] On Behalf Of Andre Schappo Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:49 AM To: ua-discuss at icann.org Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] SAC095 - SSAC Advisory on the Use of Emoji in Domain > On 31 May 2017, at 16:59, Andrew Sullivan > wrote: > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:49:21PM +0000, Andre Schappo wrote: >> My standard practice is to make, whenever possible, my links WYSIWYG. I think it a good practice. Sometimes it is not possible because of overly long and complex URLs. >> > > It's never actually been a recommendation from hypertext people, > however. They've always suggested that you should put links liberally > in running text that is in itself nicely readable. So, > >

<016401d2dad9$803549a0$809fdce0$@dukes.in.rs> Message-ID: <09af071daeac4dc8804110ef868744cb@co1-e16dfm05.exchange.corp.microsoft.com> I would encourage you to evaluate each of the points in that article as to how they relate to critical living languages. In our current work to support the full range of African languages, those issues (such as ZWJ) become critical. And, likewise, the rendering differences between the same Unicode point across scripts is a major issue in the Indic market and with italic Cyrillic. Whether an organization tries to limit Emoji is somewhat irrelevant. The key is that those very same issues need to be solved at the text stack level for many living languages to truly work as EAI or IDNs. -Stuart From: ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Dusan Stojicevic Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 6:18 AM To: 'Jothan Frakes' ; Mark Svancarek Cc: ua-discuss at icann.org Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] SAC095 - SSAC Advisory on the Use of Emoji in Domain Dear all, First, +1 for Jothan. Exactly. Secondly, people can write and make written conversation without using any of the smileys or emoji like signs, by simply using their alphabet. And we have big number of issues with letters, on all fields. On the other hand, emoji is there mainly for two reasons> to express the feelings more quickly (but often not clearly) in chats (or live, written conversation of any kind), and for fun. Both reasons are not essential to us like using different alphabet in domain names, or using long TLD names. From my previous life as editor-in-chief, my rule was very simple ? there are no smileys in texts. If you are an author and not expressed the opinion, meaning or joke right, smileys or emoji can?t help you and you must change this sentence/paragraph. Readers won?t lough because there is ? at the end of the sentence, but because you wrote something funny. When (or maybe if) they come in our orbit, and we previously solve all essential issues, then we can consider it. Until then, let the ccTLDs, who ?dare? to use emoji in their tables, solve possible issues. Cheers, Dusan From: ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jothan Frakes Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 2:34 AM To: Mark Svancarek > Cc: ua-discuss at icann.org Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] SAC095 - SSAC Advisory on the Use of Emoji in Domain I think emoji is fascinating and potentially interesting to watch, and am not suggesting that emoji, once a bit more settled and standardized by those respective groups, may drift into our orbit. Rather, I am suggesting that we not allow it to distract us while working the existing issues. On May 31, 2017 09:51, "Mark Svancarek via UA-discuss" > wrote: Your explanation makes sense to me. -----Original Message----- From: ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andre Schappo Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:49 AM To: ua-discuss at icann.org Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] SAC095 - SSAC Advisory on the Use of Emoji in Domain > On 31 May 2017, at 16:59, Andrew Sullivan > wrote: > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:49:21PM +0000, Andre Schappo wrote: >> My standard practice is to make, whenever possible, my links WYSIWYG. I think it a good practice. Sometimes it is not possible because of overly long and complex URLs. >> > > It's never actually been a recommendation from hypertext people, > however. They've always suggested that you should put links liberally > in running text that is in itself nicely readable. So, > >

Message-ID: Here?s a clarification of the problem statement. I don?t think I have a position on this that I could have written up in time for the position paper deadline tomorrow. Suggestions or concerns? From: Ted Hardie [mailto:ted.ietf at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 12:25 AM To: Mark Svancarek Subject: Re: Call for Participation: IAB workshop on Explicit Internet Naming Systems On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Mark Svancarek > wrote: Ted, What are real world some examples of this? Because there is no common facility for varying the resolution method in the URI structure, those naming systems must either mint new URI schemes for each resolution service or infer the resolution method from a reserved name or pattern. The most recent example in the IETF came up in the reservation of .onion. The system envisioned there uses the TOR system for node resolution, rather than the DNS. Reserving that name was a very long process in which a lot of discussion was needed, and it is clear the model does not scale well. One other option considered was minting URI schemes like https-tor://tor-node/, but they would need a new scheme for every application wanting to use the resolution (so email, xmpp, etc. would each need to be created and deployed). Getting deployment of those was seen to be even harder. I hope this example helps illustrate the problem, regards, Ted Ted From: Peter Constable Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 8:31 AM To: Shawn Steele >; Mark Svancarek > Subject: FW: Call for Participation: IAB workshop on Explicit Internet Naming Systems You?ve probably seen this, but just in case? From: Unicore [mailto:unicore-bounces at unicode.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Moore via Unicore Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 8:25 PM To: unicore at unicode.org Subject: Fwd: Call for Participation: IAB workshop on Explicit Internet Naming Systems For anyone who might be interested, please check the info at the IAB link below. Thanks, Lisa -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Call for Papers Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 04:29:33 -0700 From: Ted Hardie To: lisa at unicode.org, Michel SUIGNARD Hi Lisa, Michel, I mentioned to each of you the workshop that the IAB is planning; the CFP is now out: https://www.iab.org/2017/06/22/call-for-participation-iab-workshop-on-explicit-internet-naming-systems/ I'd be happy for you to circulate it to folks in the Unicode world who might be able to contribute. regards, Ted -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajs at crankycanuck.ca Tue Jun 27 21:04:56 2017 From: ajs at crankycanuck.ca (Andrew Sullivan) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 17:04:56 -0400 Subject: [UA-discuss] FW: Call for Participation: IAB workshop on Explicit Internet Naming Systems In-Reply-To: References: <06656c9b-9817-550f-9166-aa0319297787@lisamoore.us.com>

Message-ID: The deadline is a month away, no? -- Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums. > On Jun 27, 2017, at 17:00, Mark Svancarek via UA-discuss wrote: > > Here?s a clarification of the problem statement. > I don?t think I have a position on this that I could have written up in time for the position paper deadline tomorrow. > Suggestions or concerns? > > From: Ted Hardie [mailto:ted.ietf at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 12:25 AM > To: Mark Svancarek > Subject: Re: Call for Participation: IAB workshop on Explicit Internet Naming Systems > > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Mark Svancarek wrote: > Ted, What are real world some examples of this? > Because there is no common facility for varying the resolution method in the URI structure, those naming systems must either mint new URI schemes for each resolution service or infer the resolution method from a reserved name or pattern. > The most recent example in the IETF came up in the reservation of .onion. The system envisioned there uses the TOR system for node resolution, rather than the DNS. Reserving that name was a very long process in which a lot of discussion was needed, and it is clear the model does not scale well. One other option considered was minting URI schemes like https-tor://tor-node/, but they would need a new scheme for every application wanting to use the resolution (so email, xmpp, etc. would each need to be created and deployed). Getting deployment of those was seen to be even harder. > I hope this example helps illustrate the problem, > > regards, > > Ted > > Ted > > From: Peter Constable > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 8:31 AM > To: Shawn Steele ; Mark Svancarek > Subject: FW: Call for Participation: IAB workshop on Explicit Internet Naming Systems > > You?ve probably seen this, but just in case? > > From: Unicore [mailto:unicore-bounces at unicode.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Moore via Unicore > Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 8:25 PM > To: unicore at unicode.org > Subject: Fwd: Call for Participation: IAB workshop on Explicit Internet Naming Systems > > For anyone who might be interested, please check the info at the IAB link below. > > Thanks, > > Lisa > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: > Call for Papers > Date: > Sun, 25 Jun 2017 04:29:33 -0700 > From: > Ted Hardie > To: > lisa at unicode.org, Michel SUIGNARD > > > Hi Lisa, Michel, > > I mentioned to each of you the workshop that the IAB is planning; the CFP is now out: > > https://www.iab.org/2017/06/22/call-for-participation-iab-workshop-on-explicit-internet-naming-systems/ > > I'd be happy for you to circulate it to folks in the Unicode world who might be able to contribute. > > regards, > > Ted > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From don.hollander at icann.org Tue Jun 27 21:37:27 2017 From: don.hollander at icann.org (Don Hollander) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 21:37:27 +0000 Subject: [UA-discuss] DRAFT: UA103 - Programming Hacks Message-ID: <37F48742-EBEE-402C-BA98-ABC6B393179F@icann.org> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i4OAeojY5dj3ZAG8sHcrpSdaG1vN_R011MOuza4djRY/edit?usp=sharing As part of our efforts to raise awareness, we?re producing editorials/guest blogs that we?re getting published in various professional body newsletters and such. Our third editorial is focusing on Programming Hacks. Editable copy is available at the link above. Here?s the current draft. Comments please, by the 10th of July. Thanks. Don Programming language hacks UA103 Computer programmers are nice people.? They are intelligent.? They are wise.? (Their mothers would say they are good looking J).? They know that if people have a chance to make a mistake, they will.? So, the wise, intelligent (and good looking) computer programmers build their systems to help prevent mistakes at the source.? Computer programmers are also very efficient (their siblings might say lazy) and will reuse code ? either their own or someone else?s. For years computer programmers have been putting the same data validation of email addresses and domain names into their code to reduce the amount of Garbage In.? And this now turns out to be a mistake. What?s happened is that while the validation code has been pretty static, email addresses and domain names have been changing quite radically.?? Since 2001, Top Level Domain Names (TLDs) have been longer than two or three characters.? Since 2010 Top Level Domain names have been available in non-ASCII characters.? And since 2013, the number of TLDs and their frequency of entry into the Root Zone has gone off the charts! And today we also have mailbox names (the label to the left of the ?@?) that can also be in non-ASCII characters! So, it?s time for computer programmers to update their code to accommodate these new domain name options. So here are some tips and tricks for computer programmers to use when updating their code: Input Data fields that accept domain names or email addresses should be able to accept ASCII and non-ASCII characters.? UTF-8 is the key here.? This will affect both programs that accept data from a keyboard or other data sources and the database where its stored.?? The good news is that most modern databases will have no problems with this. Validation The easiest way to deal with this is to only use syntactic validation against the specifications in the RFCs[1]. There are other ways of making sure the data entered is what the user meant, such as requiring entry of the field twice and doing a compare. If you need to validate further, use a DNS lookup ? that?s the most certain.?? Or if you?re going to use a local table, make sure that it?s from an authoritative source and that it?s updated at least daily.? Storage The easiest way to deal with storage is to support UTF-8.?? But for applications that can?t, there is an algorithm (Punycode)[2] that allows transformation of domain names between ASCII and non-ASCII strings. NB: the Punycode conversion may NOT work for the mailbox name in an email address.? Alternative encoding schemes exist and should be applied. Processing There are times when two different representations of a domain name are not the same but are equivalent.? For example, when a non-ASCII domain name has been converted using the Punycode algorithm.? When processing or sorting, it?s important that they are treated as equivalent.?? This will require some policies for the application or indeed the organization as to how domain names and email addresses are being dealt with. Display Because domain names in non-ASCII characters (and mailbox names too) are growing more popular, you?ll need to make sure that you?re able to display them in a way that works for your community.?? Public facing applications should certainly display in native scripts and not an ASCII resulting from a Punycode transformation. Check Libraries A growing number of libraries, particularly Open Source Programming Language Libraries, will be correcting their validation routines, so being able to be UA Ready may be as simple as recompiling the code using the latest versions of the library.?? The UASG is encouraging remediation work in quite a number of libraries. Github and SourceForge are also two good places to look to find working code. The UASG also publishes some good reference material at www.uasg.tech/documents. Most efforts to get applications UA Ready will fall into the ?Bug Fix? level of effort.? It?s time to get applications up to scratch.?? [1] https://uasg.tech/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/UA006-Relevant-RFCs.pdf [2] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3492.txt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4540 bytes Desc: not available URL: From marksv at microsoft.com Tue Jun 27 21:57:39 2017 From: marksv at microsoft.com (Mark Svancarek) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 21:57:39 +0000 Subject: [UA-discuss] FW: Call for Participation: IAB workshop on Explicit Internet Naming Systems In-Reply-To: References: <06656c9b-9817-550f-9166-aa0319297787@lisamoore.us.com>