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

Meikal Mumin meikal.mumin at uni-koeln.de
Tue Sep 23 15:49:50 CEST 2014


Dear Sarmad,

if you have the opportunity maybe you can say a couple of words on the call
later, what you think should be done precisely, and how TF-AIDN or it's
members could reply.

Thanks,

Meikal

2014-09-22 12:25 GMT+02:00 Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain at icann.org>:

> 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>:
>
> 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] *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:* tf-aidn-bounces at meswg.org [mailto:tf-aidn-bounces at meswg.org
> <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>
> Date: Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 3:00 PM
> Subject: Idna-update Digest, Vol 73, Issue 15
> To: idna-update at alvestrand.no
>
>
> Send Idna-update mailing list submissions to
>         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
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         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>
> To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>, Paul Hoffman
>         <paul.hoffman at cybersecurity.org>
> Cc: IDNA update work <idna-update at alvestrand.no>, Markus Scherer
>         <markus.icu at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Unicode 7.0.0, (combining) Hamza Above, and normalization
> Message-ID: <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> 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>
> To: John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com>, "Whistler, Ken"
>         <ken.whistler at sap.com>,  Paul Hoffman
>         <paul.hoffman at cybersecurity.org>, Markus Scherer
>         <markus.icu at gmail.com>
> Cc: IDNA update work <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
> >
>
> 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>
> To: idna-update at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Unicode 7.0.0, (combining) Hamza Above, and normalization
> Message-ID: <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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 00:36:24 +0000
> From: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com>
> To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>,
>         "idna-update at alvestrand.no" <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
> >
>
> 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
> 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
> http://lists.meswg.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-aidn
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.meswg.org/pipermail/tf-aidn/attachments/20140923/641bba13/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tf-aidn mailing list