Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > Finally, it is still unclear why any of this is an issue for this work.
I agree that this is a valid, if somewhat uniformative, way to approach the issue. That's why I mentioned removing all of it as an option. But, the draft as it stands still has Section 2, and the later IDNA text. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis-10.html#name-identifying-application-ser You can't follow that advice and get the interoperability people expect from the IETF. As you wrote yourself, Postfix just used a ubiquitous library and ended up with UTS-46, without really having an opinion on the matter. That says it all to me. thanks, Rob On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 10:12 AM Rob Sayre <say...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Here's an edit, just to start: > > "An "internationalized domain name", i.e., a DNS domain name that includes > at least one label containing appropriately encoded Unicode code points > outside the traditional US-ASCII range and conforming to the processing and > validity checks specified for "IDNA2008" in [IDNA-DEFS]" > > I think this reference should be to UTS-46, since it allows more names. > (U+2615 ( ☕ ) HOT BEVERAGE is valid in UTS-46 but not IDNA2008). > > Later on, the draft says "there are in practice at least two primary > approaches to internationalized domain names", but it sure seems like the > Internet has settled on UTS-46, a superset of IDNA2008. I think the draft > should say that. I can offer specific text here, but this will require a > big rewrite of the paragraph, and I think the editors will have their own > ideas. > > So far we've found Chrome and Postfix, just to name a few examples, using > UTS-46. I think the draft is overstating the influence of IDNA2008. After > all, it's 14-15 years old, and things have changed. But, as Orie notes, > there are still bugs. > > thanks, > Rob > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 6:24 PM Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries> > wrote: > >> Possibly relevant, not sure if helpful: >> >> - https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/341 >> - https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/733 >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023, 7:26 PM Rob Sayre <say...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 5:16 PM Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> > That is what works. >>>> >>>> Well, IDNA2008 works for many applications and UTS-46 works for many >>>> other applications. I'm not as certain as you are that one of these >>>> technologies works and the other does not. Can you produce evidence >>>> that, by implication, IDNA2008 does not work? What problems does it not >>>> solve? >>>> >>> >>> That's the dispute, right? UTS-46 allows more names than IDNA2008, so it >>> will be more interoperable, and it is popular. >>> >>> If you look at this table, that seems correct: >>> >>> https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr46/#Table_IDNA_Comparisons >>> >>> I am not a fan of works of fiction in standards, and I think UTS-46 is >>> closer to the truth here. >>> >>> thanks, >>> Rob >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Uta mailing list >>> Uta@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta >>> >>
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
