[TF-AIDN] Fwd: Idna-update Digest, Vol 73, Issue 15

Sarmad Hussain sarmad.hussain at icann.org
Mon Sep 22 12:25:14 CEST 2014


Dear Meikal, 

 

The discussion on IEFT list has subsided – though not concluded.  TF-AIDN should get involved in the discussion as it is very relevant, to provide input from Arabic script community.  This can also be done on individual basis.

 

Regards,
Sarmad

 

 

From: Meikal Mumin [mailto:meikal.mumin at uni-koeln.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 3:39 PM
To: Sarmad Hussain
Cc: Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir; TF-AIDN
Subject: Re: [TF-AIDN] Fwd: Idna-update Digest, Vol 73, Issue 15

 

Dear Sarmad, Abdulrahman, all,

 

is my response on these things still required? If so, I'm having troubles understanding what the matter is about. Maybe someone could explain?

 

Best,

 

Meikal

 

2014-08-11 13:53 GMT+02:00 Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain at icann.org <mailto:sarmad.hussain at icann.org> >:

Dear Abdulrahman,


We do not have speakers of the language, but Fulfulde has been discussed in TF-AIDN by Meikel and Tariq.  However, the issue being discussed is more general and applicable across other possible code points as well, this code point just a concrete example.  

 

Here is the link to the proposal: http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2010/10442r-hamza-on-beh.pdf.  

 

Regards,
Sarmad

 

 

From: tf-aidn-bounces at meswg.org <mailto:tf-aidn-bounces at meswg.org>  [mailto:tf-aidn-bounces at meswg.org <mailto:tf-aidn-bounces at meswg.org> ] On Behalf Of Abdulrahman I. ALGhadir
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 9:30 AM
To: Dr.Sarmad Hussain; TF-AIDN
Subject: Re: [TF-AIDN] Fwd: Idna-update Digest, Vol 73, Issue 15

 

BTW do we have anyone here who represent the language that uses this character?

 

From:  <mailto:tf-aidn-bounces at meswg.org> tf-aidn-bounces at meswg.org [ <mailto:tf-aidn-bounces at meswg.org> mailto:tf-aidn-bounces at meswg.org] On Behalf Of Dr.Sarmad Hussain
Sent: 9/Aug/2014 7:17 AM
To: TF-AIDN
Subject: [TF-AIDN] Fwd: Idna-update Digest, Vol 73, Issue 15

 

Dear All,

 

There is a significant debate going on at the IDNA list on U+08A1.  TF-AIDN should organize its views and speak on this matter.  I would encourage those interested to sign up for the IDNA update list.

 

regards,
Sarmad

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <idna-update-request at alvestrand.no <mailto:idna-update-request at alvestrand.no> >
Date: Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 3:00 PM
Subject: Idna-update Digest, Vol 73, Issue 15
To: idna-update at alvestrand.no <mailto:idna-update at alvestrand.no> 


Send Idna-update mailing list submissions to
        idna-update at alvestrand.no <mailto:idna-update at alvestrand.no> 

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        idna-update-request at alvestrand.no <mailto:idna-update-request at alvestrand.no> 

You can reach the person managing the list at
        idna-update-owner at alvestrand.no <mailto:idna-update-owner at alvestrand.no> 

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Idna-update digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Unicode 7.0.0, (combining) Hamza Above, and normalization
      (John C Klensin)
   2. RE: Unicode 7.0.0, (combining) Hamza Above, and normalization
      (Shawn Steele)
   3. Re: Unicode 7.0.0, (combining) Hamza Above, and normalization
      (Andrew Sullivan)
   4. RE: Unicode 7.0.0, (combining) Hamza Above, and normalization
      (Shawn Steele)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:27:43 -0400
From: John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com <mailto:klensin at jck.com> >
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> >, Paul Hoffman
        <paul.hoffman at cybersecurity.org <mailto:paul.hoffman at cybersecurity.org> >
Cc: IDNA update work <idna-update at alvestrand.no <mailto:idna-update at alvestrand.no> >, Markus Scherer
        <markus.icu at gmail.com <mailto:markus.icu at gmail.com> >
Subject: Re: Unicode 7.0.0, (combining) Hamza Above, and normalization
Message-ID: <364525BEC5599694F2C032B7 at JcK-HP8200.jck.com <mailto:364525BEC5599694F2C032B7 at JcK-HP8200.jck.com> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii



--On Thursday, August 07, 2014 19:07 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
<ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> > wrote:

> I wasn't trying to say the result is wrong as such.  I think
> it _may_ be wrong for IDNA and therefore possibly an
> indication that our approach in IDNA2008 (and therefore alas
> in precis) is inadequate.

Yes, exactly.
    john







------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 00:20:44 +0000
From: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com <mailto:Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com> >
To: John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com <mailto:klensin at jck.com> >, "Whistler, Ken"
        <ken.whistler at sap.com <mailto:ken.whistler at sap.com> >,  Paul Hoffman
        <paul.hoffman at cybersecurity.org <mailto:paul.hoffman at cybersecurity.org> >, Markus Scherer
        <markus.icu at gmail.com <mailto:markus.icu at gmail.com> >
Cc: IDNA update work <idna-update at alvestrand.no <mailto:idna-update at alvestrand.no> >
Subject: RE: Unicode 7.0.0, (combining) Hamza Above, and normalization
Message-ID:
        <288d953341714901bd907230b9fe8fbf at CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com <mailto:288d953341714901bd907230b9fe8fbf at CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> >

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

> Again, they can be "not the same" for Unicode purposes and "the same" for IDNA ones.

I'm confused about this or how it even matters.  ? as in fu?ball is clearly the same as ss as in fussball (linguistically), and are also confusable, yet IDNA2008 decided they should be different.  So regardless of the characteristics of any one character clearly IDNA is happy that the other mitigations in place prevent abuse of the character set, in which case second guessing Unicode is just a waste of time.  Certainly IDNA is going to continue to work just fine regardless of the outcome of this discussion.

So then one argues that linguistically it?s not important, they look the same and DNS is for identifiers and was never intended to be linguistic.  Therefore this new character may as well be prohibited since you can make identifiers without it.  However that belies the fact that ? and ss were differentiated in IDNA2008 for purely linguistic/aesthetic reasons as they certainly worked fine as identifiers before then.

There is a fairly simple solution to preventing concerns about Unicode's encoding practices in the future.  If people here are concerned enough about character encodings and Unicode's decisions, then participate in Unicode, please don't try to change it after the fact.

-Shawn

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 20:27:45 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> >
To: idna-update at alvestrand.no <mailto:idna-update at alvestrand.no> 
Subject: Re: Unicode 7.0.0, (combining) Hamza Above, and normalization
Message-ID: <20140808002744.GN38162 at mx1.yitter.info <mailto:20140808002744.GN38162 at mx1.yitter.info> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 10:56:51PM +0000, Whistler, Ken wrote:
> The linguistic grounds are now basically irrelevant to the *current*
> discussion. My assertion is that U+08A1 beh-with-hamza as *NOT*
> the same as the sequence beh + combining Hamza. And that assertion
> can be derived from the decisions and the data published by the UTC
> about the encoding.

I think everyone agrees on this, because it's very close to a
tautology: they're not the same character by definition, because they
don't normalize to the same thing and thet're not the same code
points.  For practical purposes, that fact about the world doesn't
really clarify matters..

> All of this discussion seems to be boiling down to IETF second-guessing
> of Unicode character encoding decisions and complaints about Unicode
> normalization not satisfying expectations based on rather simplistic
> notions of which things that look the same should *be* the same.

I don't think that's a fair characterization.  Nobody is
"second-guessing" anything.  It's rather that we -- John, actually --
discovered that there's a consequence of this case that we did not
previously understand, and it has uncomfortable consequences for the
way we had previously relied on Unicode, because it didn't work the
way we thought.  That's hardly surprising, but it's an important new
discovery and we have to understand the consequences of it.

> for IDNA because of a one-off quibble about encoding decisions
> made by the UTC and normalization just *increases* the overall
> complexity and level of confusion about application of the protocol.

Well, maybe and maybe not.  Some of the users of this protocol are
na?ve users of it -- they don't even know they're using a protocol.
It might be (I don't yet have an opinion) that doing things in a way
that is less likely to lead to attacks against those people is worth
making either the protocol or the protocol-implementation advice more
complicated.  Presumably, implementers have a greater reason to become
familiar with the picky exceptional cases.

Best regards,

A


--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> 


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 00:36:24 +0000
From: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com <mailto:Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com> >
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> >,
        "idna-update at alvestrand.no <mailto:idna-update at alvestrand.no> " <idna-update at alvestrand.no <mailto:idna-update at alvestrand.no> >
Subject: RE: Unicode 7.0.0, (combining) Hamza Above, and normalization
Message-ID:
        <1b55925be6d1460b920275084d5444c0 at CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com <mailto:1b55925be6d1460b920275084d5444c0 at CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> >

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

> Well, maybe and maybe not.  Some of the users of this protocol are na?ve users of it -- they don't even know they're using a protocol.
> It might be (I don't yet have an opinion) that doing things in a way that is less likely to lead to attacks against those people is worth making > either the protocol or the protocol-implementation advice more complicated.  Presumably, implementers have a greater reason to become > familiar with the picky exceptional cases.

I think it's dangerous to assume that fixing this lessens any risk of any attacks.  It was mentioned in another mail that if Unicode had picked a different name this may not have even been noticed.  There are likely many similar-looking things that fit in a similar bucket and have escaped notice.  IMO thinking that anything is more secure by clamping down on this one character is a bit na?ve.

-Shawn

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Idna-update mailing list
Idna-update at alvestrand.no <mailto:Idna-update at alvestrand.no> 
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update


End of Idna-update Digest, Vol 73, Issue 15
*******************************************

 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
This message and its attachment, if any, are confidential and may contain legally
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender immediately and delete this message and its attachment, if any, from your
system. You should not copy this message or disclose its contents to any other
person or use it for any purpose. Statements and opinions expressed in this e-mail
are those of the sender, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Communications
and Information Technology Commission (CITC). CITC accepts no liability for damage
caused by this email.


_______________________________________________
TF-AIDN mailing list
TF-AIDN at meswg.org <mailto:TF-AIDN at meswg.org> 
http://lists.meswg.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-aidn

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.meswg.org/pipermail/tf-aidn/attachments/20140922/f4b348be/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5118 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.meswg.org/pipermail/tf-aidn/attachments/20140922/f4b348be/attachment-0001.p7s>


More information about the Tf-aidn mailing list