[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [idn] IDNA section 3.1 requirement 3



Adam,

I see where you are going here, but, to some considerable extent, I think it is a waste of time or worse.

Please take a step back from looking at coding, disclaimers, and this type of recommendation and put yourself into the place of the application developer who, other than the registrars and registries, is the market for the IDNA technology. Those application developers, at least the ones who intend to survive, are quite sensitive to user reactions: users who are unhappy with user interfaces tend to have thoughts about going elsewhere. The IETF has, for years, avoided getting involved with user interface design for many reasons; being the source of that unhappiness is one of the reasons.

You are now proposing to transform an IDNA rule that, given contemporary operating system and display designs, was essentially meaningless (but harmless) into a fairly complex set of rules. If the current rule contracted the experience application designers wanted to deliver to their users, they would ignore it... and have been doing so. If the new rule is at variance with the target experience, it, too, will be ignored.

Let's look at a few of the things we know about user behavior and reactions:

   * They do not like looking at punycode or similar "no
   obvious meaning" and/or "ugly" constructions.  If too much
   of it is displayed, they will be unhappy.

   * They don't like the unpredictable and unexpected.  If they
   are used to seeing native characters and punycode suddenly
   pops up, there had better be a good, and plausible, and
   immediately accessible explanation.

   * They get really irritated with repeated and intrusive
   warnings that they don't know how to interpret and what to
   do about.  With too many pop-up alerts, the usual response
   is to click "ok" every time and to go looking for a way to
   shut the alerts off.  Given that there are many legitimate
   cases that fall into your "display punycode" categories,
   especially in the vicinity of certain scripts and languages,
   the application would generate a lot of false positives and
   the user would learn to ignore whatever is written there.

Make whatever suggestions and recommendations you think appropriate, but wrapping them in conformance language about what SHOULD/MUST be done just brings discredit on the protocol/ algorithm core of IDNA.

Just my opinion.

    john

--On Wednesday, March 16, 2005 10:13 PM +0000 "Adam M. Costello" <idn.amc+0@nicemice.net.RemoveThisWord> wrote:

Consider a domain name containing a slash-homograph.

As it stands, IDNA section 3.1 requirement 3 tells
applications that they "SHOULD" display the non-ACE form.  The
security considerations section, much later, "suggests" that
applications provide visual indications of various anomalies
(from which one could extrapolate that the slash-homograph
would benefit from a visual indication).

I think we've seen that these security concerns need to be
less buried, that "visual indications" are too burdensome on
implementations, and that in some cases (like this one) the
recommendation to display the non-ACE form ought to be
withdrawn, or even reversed (that is, recommend the ASCII
form).

There I propose a technical change to IDNA section 3.1
requirement 3. For reference, here it is as it stands now in
RFC-3490 (with one typo corrected):

   3) ACE labels obtained from domain name slots SHOULD be
hidden from       users when it is known that the environment
can handle the non-ACE       form, except when the ACE form is
explicitly requested.  When       it is not known whether or
not the environment can handle the       non-ACE form, the
application MAY use the non-ACE form (which       might fail,
such as by not being displayed properly), or it MAY       use
the ACE form (which will look unintelligible to the user).
Given an internationalized domain name, an equivalent domain
name       containing no ACE labels can be obtained by
applying the ToUnicode       operation (see section 4) to each
label.  When requirements 2 and       3 both apply,
requirement 2 takes precedence.

Here is my proposed replacement:

--begin--

   3) When a domain label occupying or obtained from a domain
name       slot is to be shown to a user, it SHOULD NOT simply
be shown in       whatever form it was found in; before being
shown it SHOULD be       forced into either ASCII form (which
can be obtained by applying       ToASCII) or non-ACE form
(which can be obtained by applying       ToUnicode, see
section 4), according to the first applicable of       the
following rules:

      a) If requirements 2 and 3 both apply, requirement 2
takes          precedence, and the ASCII form MUST be used.

      b) When the user has explicitly requested to see one
form or the          other, that form SHOULD be shown.

      c) When it is known that the environment cannot handle
the non-ACE          form, the ASCII form SHOULD be shown.

      d) If the non-ACE form contains any character outside
Unicode          categories L (letter), N (number), and M
(mark), other than          U+002D hyphen-minus, the ACE form
SHOULD be shown.

      e) If the application determines that showing the
non-ACE form          would pose too great a risk of
misleading the user, the ASCII          form MAY be shown.
Applications MAY use complex heuristics to          estimate
this risk, but SHOULD try to minimize the negative
impact on legitimate usage of internationalized domain names.

      f) When it is not known whether the environment can
handle the          non-ACE form, the application MAY show the
non-ACE form (which          might fail, such as by not being
displayed properly), or it MAY          show the ASCII form
(which will look unintelligible to the user          if it is
an ACE).

      g) In general, when rules a-f do not apply, the non-ACE
form          SHOULD be shown.

      Rules c, d, and e above apply tests to "the" non-ACE
form, but       in fact there can be many non-ACE forms that
differ only in       capitalization and/or normalization.  If
a given non-ACE label       fails some test, it MAY be
converted to an equivalent non-ACE       label by applying the
map and/or normalize steps of [NAMEPREP] (or       all the
steps), and then given another chance to pass the test.

--end--

Thoughts?

AMC