Subject: [weirds] IDN language tag

From: Ernie Dainow <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:28:42 -0400

It seems there is a consensus to return both u-label and a-label for 
domain/hostname. In addition, the language of the u-label should be 
provided, something like
    { u-label: "füü",  a-label: "xn--f-ehaa",  lang="de" }
    (or u-name/a-name, unicode/ascii)

This is needed because in many cases the language of an IDN will be 
different from the language of the top-most object.

-Ernie

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 21:06:15 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Ernie Dainow
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 3:29 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [weirds] IDN language tag
> 

One problem: IDNs aren't associated with specific languages.

Scott

---

From: Jean-Philippe Dionne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:08:36 -0400

>     (or u-name/a-name, unicode/ascii)

A library exists in every languages to converting an a-label to an 
u-label.  It is straightforward and it is not harder to do it on the 
client side versus the server side.  browsers and command line tools 
already do it.  I still wonder why we would want to have redundant 
information on the wire.

The mapping of a-label -> u-label is unique.

As the guy who write test cases, I'll have to add a test to see if the 
two fields are equivalent.  A lazy client programmer will just take the 
label it suits most for his usage, while a prudent programmer will have 
to write a check that u-label == a-label and have error handling in the 
strange situation where it would not be equal...

> different from the language of the top-most object.

Jean-Philippe

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:20:45 -0400

> One problem: IDNs aren't associated with specific languages.

That's true, although in many repositories they are.  I'd like to
suggest this be optional, because if a repository has it we ought to
have a standard place to put it.  At least the ICANN-contracted
registries will have this data in their repositories, because it's
part of the IDN implementation guidelines.

For it to be useful, I think you need the IANA repository identifier
for the policy as well as the language tag.  This may change if the
ICANN LGR process ever gets adopted.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Mar 2013 21:20:25 -0000

>One problem: IDNs aren't associated with specific languages.

Seems to me we could just say that if there's a language tag
available, which there should be if the IDN is a registered domain
name, the server should include it.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:22:01 -0400

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 05:08:36PM -0400, Jean-Philippe Dionne wrote:
> u-label.

This is only true for IDNA2008.  For IDNA2003, it isn't quite so
symmetric, and there's the rub.

> As the guy who write test cases, I'll have to add a test to see if
> the two fields are equivalent.  A lazy client programmer will just
> take the label it suits most for his usage, while a prudent
> programmer will have to write a check that u-label == a-label and
> have error handling in the strange situation where it would not be
> equal...

This is an excellent point, however.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Francisco Obispo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:22:37 -0700

Just for the record, we shouldn't call it "language tag" but "IDN table identifier", we are preparing a follow up draft to http://tools.ietf.org/html/obispo-epp-idn to deal with that and UNAME/ANAME

> name, the server should include it.

Francisco Obispo 
Director of Applications and Services - ISC
email: [email-masked]
Phone: +1 650 423 1374 || INOC-DBA *3557* NOC
PGP KeyID = B38DB1BE

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 21:24:28 +0000

> Behalf Of Francisco Obispo
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 5:23 PM
> To: John Levine
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [weirds] IDN language tag
> 
> Just for the record, we shouldn't call it "language tag" but "IDN table
> identifier", we are preparing a follow up draft to
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/obispo-epp-idn to deal with that and
> UNAME/ANAME

This I feel better about.

Scott

---

From: Jean-Philippe Dionne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:53:39 -0400

> symmetric, and there's the rub.

Hi Andrew,

To my knowledge, from IDNA2003 to IDNA2008, the punycode algorithm has 
not changed.

Applying the punycode algorithm will always lead to a unique unicode 
representation.   This representation might be considered invalid 
according to IDNA200x.

Regards
Jean-Philippe