Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > Given unclear interoperability for names valid under UTS-46 that are not > valid under IDNA2008, it seems not unreasonable for the current work to > not promise interoperability for such names.
Hi, I'm not sure. I guess the obvious thing to do is to make a website, PKI certificate, and email address only valid under UTS-46, and see what happens. It might break, and you could be right. But, this argument goes both ways. If the IETF always used your logic, nothing could be upgraded. Maybe that sort of happened here, since the Unicode Consortium and the WHATWG had to do the work. thanks, Rob On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 10:49 AM Rob Sayre <say...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
