> On Aug 29, 2018, at 8:10 PM, Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I am not an ART AD, but there is not yet an internationalization > directorate, and seeing statements like "inputs for digest computations > MUST be encoded using the UTF-8 character set" (Section 5) without > additional discussion of normalization and/or what the canonical form for > the digest input is makes me nervous. Has sufficient internationalization > review been performed to ensure that there are no latent issues in this > space? > > Two of the three ART ADs have already signed off, so we have that going for > us :) > > The only place we have human-readable text is in the problem documents, so at > that level, the i18n considerations are handled by that spec. Other than > that, everything is ASCII, so saying "UTF-8" is just a fancy way of saying, > "don't send extra zero bytes". >
I am an ART AD, for what it’s worth :-) I didn’t sweat this because of the exact reason mentioned; that is, this seems mostly not intended to be read by humans. On a related note, I did note some heartburn about the reference to RFC 3492 for IDNA, but for the purposes of ACME I suspect that’s the right thing to do. OTOH, Alexey is more of an expert on IDNA than I am. Alexey? Ben.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
