RE: spoofing and IRIs

Going through the Security considerations of 
of draft-ietf-idnabis-defs-13 vs. the current
"Security Considerations" of the current IRI document

here's looking at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-defs 
section 4:


4.1 general: The mapping difference should be referenced
  in the IRI document security considerations?
  Not recapitulated?

* Do we need to review IDNA2008-Bidi against the
  BIDI advice in the IRI document?
  (I talked with Martin about possibly moving the
   BIDI discussions to a separate document,  mainly
  to facilitate letting other editors work on the
  BIDI sections)?

4.2 U-label lengths
  Are there any additional concerns about URI length
  limits that should be addressed here? Are there
  IRI length limits that are different than the URI
  length limit?

4.3 Local Character Set: I think for IRIs there are
  related issues with the document character set?
  Are there special issues for the query parameters
  being remapped according to the document encoding?

4.4 (this is the 'spoofing' issue) Do you like what
  idnabis-defs says better than what I wrote below?
  I kind of wanted to punt the whole thing to
  UTR36.

4.5 The part of this that's relevant to IRIs is that
the "comparison" function. 

4.6-4.8 not sure how these would apply.





Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: SM [mailto:sm@resistor.net] 
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 9:53 PM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: public-iri@w3.org
Subject: Re: spoofing and IRIs

Hi Larry,
At 21:19 27-02-10, Larry Masinter wrote:
>I'd like to replace most of that section with a summary and a 
>pointer to the Unicode Technical Report #36

See Section 4.4 of draft-ietf-idnabis-defs-13.  There is also a 
pointer to the Unicode Technical Report #36.

Regards,
-sm

Received on Sunday, 28 February 2010 06:26:04 UTC