Hi all, On Thu, Aug 30, 2018, at 2:58 AM, Ben Campbell wrote: > > >> 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.Agreed.
And JSON should be encoded in UTF-8, so stating that explicitly is a good thing. > 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? RFC 3492 defines Punicode, i.e. how to encode U-labels in ASCII to produce A-labels. This particular encoding hasn't changed between IDNA2003 and IDNA2008, so I think referencing it is Ok.
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
