Well, this certainly isn't called for: https://github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/issues/85
I wrote a completely sensible issue, and you closed it with no explanation. Do you think emoji domain names don't exist? What's the problem? IDNA2008 certainly doesn't reflect reality anymore. Why not just say that? thanks, Rob On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 11:22 AM Rob Sayre <say...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I found these pages informative: > > https://i❤.ws <https://xn--i-7iq.ws> > This is an emoji-oriented registrar... never fight emojis, it's like > getting in a fist fight with the ocean. People will use them wherever they > are allowed. > > From there, they linked: > http://unicode.org/faq/idn.html#10 > > You'll see there that UTS-46 is the most compatible thing, and it will > win. Then, this page is further linked: > https://features.icann.org/ssac-advisory-use-emoji-domain-names > > So, ICANN says not to do this, but people love emojis, so they lost here. > > thanks, > Rob > > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 10:59 AM Eliot Lear <l...@lear.ch> wrote: > >> I'm not going to characterize the group, but my suggestion would be to >> focus on security considerations of the choices and see how things shake >> out. >> >> Eliot >> On 29.01.23 18:49, Rob Sayre wrote: >> >> 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 listUta@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta >> >>
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
