Skip to main content

Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Background, Explanation, and Rationale
RFC 5894

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-02-14
17 Cindy Morgan Downref to RFC 5894 approved by Last Call for draft-faltstrom-unicode12-07
2015-10-14
17 (System) Notify list changed from idnabis-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
17 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Ralph Droms
2010-08-04
17 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2010-08-04
17 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5894' added by Cindy Morgan
2010-08-04
17 (System) RFC published
2010-01-15
17 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2010-01-13
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2010-01-13
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2010-01-13
17 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2010-01-13
17 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2010-01-13
17 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2010-01-13
17 Lisa Dusseault State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Lisa Dusseault
2010-01-11
17 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2010-01-11
17 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-17.txt
2010-01-08
17 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ralph Droms has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Ralph Droms
2010-01-08
17 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-01-07
2010-01-07
17 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2010-01-07
16 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-16.txt
2010-01-07
17 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
From a review by Christian Vogt:

- Section 1.1 says that "case-insensitivity is treated slightly
  differently in IDNA2008" than in IDNA2003.  It …
[Ballot comment]
From a review by Christian Vogt:

- Section 1.1 says that "case-insensitivity is treated slightly
  differently in IDNA2008" than in IDNA2003.  It is not clear from the
  context why this is so.

- At the beginning of section 3, the term "code-point" is used without
  definition.  Suggest adding a definition.

- It may make sense to re-consider the title of section 4.  The current
  title is "Issues that Constrain Possible Solutions", and one would
  hence assume that the section covers issues that have made the
  design of IDNA2008 harder.  But the section rather describes issues
  related to applications supporting IDNA2008.  Therefore, a title
  such as "Application-Related Issues" would in my opinion be
  preferable.
2010-01-07
17 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2010-01-07
17 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2010-01-07
17 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
Slightly puzzled by Section 1.1

  Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) is a collection
  of standards that allow client applications to …
[Ballot comment]
Slightly puzzled by Section 1.1

  Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) is a collection
  of standards that allow client applications to convert some Unicode
  mnemonics to an ASCII-compatible encoding form ("ACE") which is a
  valid DNS label containing only letters, digits, and hyphens.

Why is this specific to mnemonics?
Surely the purpose of the characters is out of scope except that they
are locally displayable/configurable.

Shows up in 1.3.1 as more of an example than a rule.

---

idnits doesn't seem to be too happy with the way you have used references. I quote:

  == Unused Reference: 'ASCII' is defined on line 1886, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'Unicode-UAX15' is defined on line 1927, but no
    explicit reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'BIG5' is defined on line 1943, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'GB18030' is defined on line 1952, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC0810' is defined on line 1962, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC2673' is defined on line 1990, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC4690' is defined on line 2020, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'Unicode-UTR36' is defined on line 2038, but no
    explicit reference was found in the text

  -- No information found for draft-ietf-idnabis-mapping - is the name
    correct?

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC  810
    (Obsoleted by RFC 952)

I think the RFC Editor will require that all references are cited in the text, or removed from the list.

---

FWIW I got seriously berated over Christmas by a relative who is a Bahá'í. Apparently we are facilitating non-convergence of communication between the peoples, and that is contrary to the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh.
2010-01-07
17 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2010-01-05
17 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2010-01-05
17 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2010-01-04
17 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2010-01-04
17 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2010-01-02
17 Ralph Droms
[Ballot comment]
The first two COMMENTs are related to my DISCUSS.

I worry about listing rules or algorithms like those in section 7.1.3 in a …
[Ballot comment]
The first two COMMENTs are related to my DISCUSS.

I worry about listing rules or algorithms like those in section 7.1.3 in a non-normative document where the normative definition is elsewhere.  It's not clear to me the explicit list of process steps is required for clarity or completeness in 7.1.3, so I suggest that the editors consider replacing the explicit process with a pointer(s) to the normative definition(s).

Nit... "Anyone looking up a label in a DNS zone is required to" seems imprecise.  Is "anyone" a user or an application or a DNS resolver?

-----

In section 7.2.3: "these characters" refer to which characters?
2010-01-02
17 Ralph Droms
[Ballot discuss]
This DISCUSS should be easy to clear...

Section 7.1.1 carefully explains that "the actual rules are rigorously defined in [IDNA2008-Protocol] and [IDNA2008-Tables]", to …
[Ballot discuss]
This DISCUSS should be easy to clear...

Section 7.1.1 carefully explains that "the actual rules are rigorously defined in [IDNA2008-Protocol] and [IDNA2008-Tables]", to make sure that the text in section 7.1.1 is not considered normative.  I assume the text in sections 7.1.2 and 7.1.3 is similarly non-normative.  If I have that right, text should be added to clarify and point to the normative references.
2010-01-02
17 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2010-01-01
17 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
idnits doesn't seem to be too happy with the way you have used references. I quote:

  == Unused Reference: 'ASCII' is defined …
[Ballot comment]
idnits doesn't seem to be too happy with the way you have used references. I quote:

  == Unused Reference: 'ASCII' is defined on line 1886, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'Unicode-UAX15' is defined on line 1927, but no
    explicit reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'BIG5' is defined on line 1943, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'GB18030' is defined on line 1952, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC0810' is defined on line 1962, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC2673' is defined on line 1990, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC4690' is defined on line 2020, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'Unicode-UTR36' is defined on line 2038, but no
    explicit reference was found in the text

  -- No information found for draft-ietf-idnabis-mapping - is the name
    correct?

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC  810
    (Obsoleted by RFC 952)

I think the RFC Editor will require that all references are cited in the text, or removed from the list.
2009-12-31
17 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
Should the [IDNA2008-Mapping] reference be normative for this Informational document?

7.1.  Design Criteria

  o  to permit incrementally adding new characters, character groups, …
[Ballot comment]
Should the [IDNA2008-Mapping] reference be normative for this Informational document?

7.1.  Design Criteria

  o  to permit incrementally adding new characters, character groups,
      scripts, and other character collections as they are incorporated
      into Unicode, doing so without disruption and, in the long term,
      without "heavy" processes (an IETF consensus process is required
      by the IDNA2008 specifications

I am not entirely sure which part you are calling "heavy" process: IETF Consensus process, or something else?

      and is expected to be required and
      used until significant experience accumulates with IDNA operations
      and new versions of Unicode).

7.1.3.  Labels in Lookup

  To further clarify the rules about handling characters that require
  contextual rules, note that one can have a context-required character
  (i.e., one that requires a rule), but no rule.  In that case, the
  character is treated the same way DISALLOWED characters are treated,
  until and unless a rule is supplied.  That state is more or less
  equivalent to "the idea of permitting this character is accepted in
  principle, but it won't be permitted in practice until consensus is
  reached on a safe way to use it".

Just to double check: my understanding that currently there are no "no rule" CONTEXTO characters defined. Is this correct?
2009-12-28
17 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2009-12-24
17 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Charlie Kaufman
2009-12-24
17 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Charlie Kaufman
2009-12-20
17 Lisa Dusseault Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-01-07 by Lisa Dusseault
2009-12-20
17 Lisa Dusseault State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Lisa Dusseault
2009-12-20
17 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lisa Dusseault
2009-12-20
17 Lisa Dusseault Ballot has been issued by Lisa Dusseault
2009-12-20
17 Lisa Dusseault Created "Approve" ballot
2009-12-15
15 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-15.txt
2009-10-26
14 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-14.txt
2009-10-16
17 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Charlie Kaufman.
2009-10-13
17 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2009-10-07
17 Amanda Baber
IANA has a question about this document.

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand that this
document has no specific IANA Actions.

IANA …
IANA has a question about this document.

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand that this
document has no specific IANA Actions.

IANA further understands that the IDNA Character Registry and the IDNA Context Registry are specified in another document and are new registries for IANA.

IANA has a question about the impact of this document on the Repository of IDN Practices located at http://www.iana.org/domains/tables

Upon approval of this document, do the authors expect any further codepoints to be registered in the Repository of IDN Practices? Further, is it up to any TLD operator to make any needed changes to this repository as a result of the approval of this document (and the associated IDNAbis series)?
2009-10-03
17 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Charlie Kaufman
2009-10-03
17 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Charlie Kaufman
2009-09-29
17 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2009-09-29
17 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2009-09-28
17 Lisa Dusseault Last Call was requested by Lisa Dusseault
2009-09-28
17 Lisa Dusseault State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Lisa Dusseault
2009-09-28
17 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-09-28
17 (System) Last call text was added
2009-09-28
17 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-09-28
17 Lisa Dusseault See idnabis-defs for the writeup
2009-09-28
17 Lisa Dusseault Draft Added by Lisa Dusseault in state AD Evaluation
2009-09-14
13 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-13.txt
2009-09-10
12 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-12.txt
2009-08-15
11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-11.txt
2009-06-18
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-10.txt
2009-03-09
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-09.txt
2009-03-06
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-08.txt
2009-02-24
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-07.txt
2008-12-15
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-06.txt
2008-11-28
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-05.txt
2008-11-03
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-04.txt
2008-10-08
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-03.txt
2008-09-12
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-02.txt
2008-07-14
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-01.txt
2008-05-13
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-00.txt