Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-d...@dukhovni.org> wrote: [...] This shipped during the course of the discussion: https://chromestatus.com/feature/5105856067141632
Chrome 110 shipped Feb 7 2023. I do not think it's a victory to have a document take so long. The emoji domains aren't going away. There's no argument there, as far as I can tell, though. So, you have an inaccurate document here, and one that is inaccurate in ways that everyone understands. I naively think it might be better to not publish such a document, but I still don't object. Maybe someone needs to say their IDNA2008 support is compliant? OK, fine, but there are still going to be coffee cup domains. thanks, Rob On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 4:34 PM Rob Sayre <say...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I think I will not raise any objection to draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis. I > might write a different draft that says "all of the IETF IDNA documents are > misleading, the internet runs on UTS-46", but that is not specific to this > draft. > > You can inspect the problem here: > https://util.unicode.org/UnicodeJsps/idna.jsp > > It's not difficult to predict the winner, imho, but reasonable people can > disagree. > > I think this PR is good: > https://github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/pull/88 > > in the sense that there is nothing technically wrong, and it is > well-written (not my work). > > What a pain. Of course, you do have to know about this problem to use TLS > in applications, but I think I'm in the rough here. > > thanks, > Rob > >
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
