Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA): Registry Restrictions and Recommendations
Summary: Has a DISCUSS. Needs 6 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Lars Eggert Discuss
[Remove the item that was addressed in -06. Add new DOWNREF issue.] Taking over this DISCUSS from Alissa. > (2) Section 4 says: > > "While the IETF rarely gives advice to those who choose to violate > IETF Standards, some advice to zones in the second category above may > be in order. That advice is that significant conservatism in what is > allowed to be registered, even for reservation purposes, and even > more conservatism about what labels are actually entered into zones > and delegated, is the best option for the Internet and its users." > > I don't see how we can have this formulation in a consensus IETF document. > Either we are giving the advice to the specific audience, in which we should > give it in a straightforward manner, or we are not giving the advice, in which > case we should not have this text in the document. I think a better approach > would be to re-formulate the whole paragraph in which this text is embedded to > explain what the best practices are as far as conservatism for registries and > registrars of any type. On this one, I see no text changes in -06. I agree with Alissa's objection. Asmus Freytag proposed a rephrasing that looks like it would address this DISCUSS. Appendix "A.6.", paragraph 9, discuss: > o References to RFCs 5893 and 6912 moved from Informative to > Normative. This change created a new DOWNREF to RFC6912 that consequently has not been through IETF Last Call.
[I thought I would skip these, but since this will likely need another IETF Last Call, maybe you want to pick some of these suggestions up as well.] This document uses RFC2119 keywords, but does not contain the recommended RFC8174 boilerplate. (It contains some text with a similar beginning.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools, so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. Section 4, paragraph 7, nit: - operate to produce revenue about actual costs, are sufficiently - ^^ + operate to produce revenue above actual costs, are sufficiently + ^^ Section 2, paragraph 3, nit: > already registered in the zone, so as to avoid homograph attacks [Gabrilovic > ^^^^^^^^ 'So as to' expresses purpose and is used in formal texts. Consider using "to" Section 2, paragraph 4, nit: > nion of the needs for all zones as well as to the desires of the most permiss > ^^^^^^^^^^ Probable usage error. Use "and" after 'both'. Section 3, paragraph 7, nit: > olicy, with the expectation that some of the code points in the MSR would not > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If the text is a generality, 'of the' is not necessary. Section 3, paragraph 9, nit: > ts they understand. In this, some of the other recommendations, such as the I > ^^^^^^^^^^^ If the text is a generality, 'of the' is not necessary. Section 4, paragraph 5, nit: > t might be considered clever, much less ones that are hard to type, render, o > ^^^^ Did you mean "fewer"? The noun ones is countable. Section 5.1, paragraph 2, nit: > In retrospect and contrary to some of the suggestions in the errata, that va > ^^^^^^^^^^^ If the text is a generality, 'of the' is not necessary. Section 5.1, paragraph 2, nit: > vely with Unicode code points. Consequently the relevant material in RFC 5890 > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb? Section 5.1, paragraph 7, nit: > UTF-32), U-labels that obey all of the relevant symmetry (and other) constra > ^^^^^^^^^^ Consider using "all the".
Benjamin Kaduk (was Discuss) Yes
Trimming most of my comments originally on the -05 as (assumed to be) addressed or explained to be non-issues. I can't find in my archives anything that is responsive to the following one, though (my apologies if I just didnt' look hard enough): I'm not really sure I understand the response to the secdir reviewer's suggestion to more clearly differentiate "domain registry", "IANA registry", and "script registry"; could the relevant portion of the reply be pointed out more clearly? (Absent a better understanding of the existing response, I have similar sentiments as the reviewer.) Additional comments on the -06: draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review became RFC 8753; is there a reason to mention it instead of just removing the pointer to the draft? s/revenue about actual costs/revenue above actual costs/?
Martin Vigoureux No Objection
Roman Danyliw No Objection
Comment (2019-09-18 for -05)
** Section 2. Recommend citing homograph attacks like was done in RFC8324: [CACM-Homograph] Gabrilovich, E. and A. Gontmakher, "The Homograph Attack", Communications of the ACM, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp. 128, DOI 10.1145/503124.503156, February 2002, <http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~gabr/papers/homograph_full.pdf>. ** Section 2. Per “The most obvious of those restrictions include provisions … so as to avoid homograph attacks and other issues”, what are “other issues"? ** Section 3. Per “registries SHOULD normally consult … [ICANN-MSR4]”, what does the normative language of consulting mean here? ** Section 4. Per “IDNA (and IDNs generally) would work better and Internet users would be better protected and more secure if registries and registrars (of any type) confined their registrations to scripts and code point sequences that they understood thoroughly”: -- Is there a citation to back the claim that tighter scripts/code point sequences have resulted in better end user security? Or that loose practices are sources of attacks? -- what does “understood thoroughly” mean here? How does one know that they have an “understanding”? ** Section 7. Per “As discussed in IAB recommendations about internationalized domain names [RFC4690], [RFC6912], and elsewhere, poor choices of strings for DNS labels can lead to opportunities for attack …”, isn’t the key issue design policies for the labels (as noted later). An attacker choosing a clever name doesn’t seem like a poor choice of a string.
Éric Vyncke No Objection
Comment (2019-09-17 for -05)
Thank you for the work put into this document. I have only one easy to fix COMMENT but I also wonder (like Mirja) about the sections about errata. Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == -- Section 1 -- C.1) Please use a the RFC 8174 boilerplate.
Alvaro Retana No Record
Erik Kline No Record
Francesca Palombini No Record
John Scudder No Record
Martin Duke No Record
Murray Kucherawy No Record
Robert Wilton No Record
Warren Kumari No Record
Zaheduzzaman Sarker No Record
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) Discuss
Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2019-09-18 for -05)
(1) Labeling one category of zones as "for-profit" gives me pause because a number of such zones are operated by not-for-profit entities, and retaining that status is quite important for both them and the Internet (e.g., .org, which is obviously significant for the IETF). I think the distinction being made is not whether the zone is run for profit, but whether it is commercial -- that is, whether domain names in the zone are bought and sold. (2) Section 4 says: "While the IETF rarely gives advice to those who choose to violate IETF Standards, some advice to zones in the second category above may be in order. That advice is that significant conservatism in what is allowed to be registered, even for reservation purposes, and even more conservatism about what labels are actually entered into zones and delegated, is the best option for the Internet and its users." I don't see how we can have this formulation in a consensus IETF document. Either we are giving the advice to the specific audience, in which we should give it in a straightforward manner, or we are not giving the advice, in which case we should not have this text in the document. I think a better approach would be to re-formulate the whole paragraph in which this text is embedded to explain what the best practices are as far as conservatism for registries and registrars of any type.
(Adam Roach; former steering group member) Yes
( for -05)
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) Yes
(2019-08-31 for -05)
The document suggests possible changes to other documents, which might not age well once published. These need to be double checked.
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes
( for -05)
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
( for -05)
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
( for -05)
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection
No Objection (2019-09-05 for -05)
I think the status of this document should be BCP or informational. The shepherd write-up says that it's PS because it updates rfc5890, however, I don't think there is requirement for an updating document to have the same status (given this is "just" and update and not a bis that's obsoleting the old doc; which btw. is confusing given this naming of this draft). I also don't find it a useful practice to (only) update RFCs to integrate errata. If the errata as currently logged as verified are not correct (and the document is not actually obsoleted by a bis), there should probably be a way to update the errata correctly.