[ccnso-idncctld] Draft List of items for technical review
Dear all, Patrik Fältström has drafted a list of what he considers to be relevant for the technical review. It is a next step to ensure that the IDNC WG will take into account the input from the technical community, which is one of the overarching requirements, and the requirement to ensure the stability and security. Please note: 1. The proposed list is only a first draft and subject to change. 2. Also note the list proposed for the technical review is ONLY relevant for and should be ONLY used in the context of IDN ccTLD under the FAST TRACK. The list can not and should not be used in any other context. Kind regards, Bart ------------------------------------- Here is a proposed list of technical reviews. A. What data is needed for the review? A.1 The A-label (minimize problem in transport / communication) A.2 The script A.3 The ccTLD and name of territory that the IDN-ccTLD is "connected" to A.4 In the case of potential issues with B.5, B.6, B.7, B.8 and B.10, arguments why the selected string is "the right one" (from a technical point of view) A.5* The language table to be used both for the TLD and for delegations B. What is checked? B.1 That the label itself is ok according to IDNA2008 B.2+ No characters other than things that Unicode identifies as Letters or [combining] Marks B.3+ No characters that map out as compatibility equivalents and only strings that are NFC-compliant B.4 No leading or trailing digits (in any script) B.5 No joiners or other invisible characters B.6 No mixing of scripts B.7 The proposed string is valid both for IDNA2003 and IDNA2008 B.8% No names that are shorter than three characters in ASCII, or two characters in non-ASCII are allowed B.9 Language table is to be chosen given evidence people have the language and script as first language in the territory applying for an IDN-ccTLD, regardless what the IDNA2008 standard say about those codepoints B.10 The TLD when being used together with the Language Table (A.5) is not to create rendering problems when using in URLs, Email addresses etc. (*) I do not think this rule will be possible to enforce. But if the wg agree this rule should exist, then the technical review is to review it. Further, the language table to be used for the 2nd level domain is always needed for B.10. (+) These rules are redundant. (%) There is a separate discussion on the actual limit for the number of characters. ASCII TLDs should not be shorter than three characters. Question is whether the same rule should exist for IDN-tld's. This rule is a proposed conclusion of long discussions.