Hi, That all sounds reasonable. But isn't this WG being incredibly intransigent by default? It was like pulling teeth to get the last RFC to say it's ok to ship only TLS 1.3 (2018), and now I guess we're refusing to accept that there are emoji domain names, even though they obviously exist. Maybe the best thing to do is break every rule from IDNA2008 that passes UTS-46, and put it on the internet. I bet the WHATWG already did this, but another effort couldn't hurt.
thanks, Rob On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 1:42 AM Eliot Lear <l...@lear.ch> wrote: > Hi Rob > On 29.01.23 00:03, Rob Sayre wrote: > > The biggest value any internet standards organization provides is a global > namespace. > > Different people have different values. To me, a global namespace is > merely a means to one or more ends, and bigger may or may not be better. > The ends I expect out of this organization are: > > 1. Utility > 2. Interoperability > 3. A reasonable (albeit not perfect) security profile for a function > that implements the standard. > > It seems that different people order these things differently in priority > (and they are not unrelated to one another), and are assessing (3) very > differently. > > Eliot > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
