On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:51:57 -0500 John C Klensin <john-ietf at
jck.com> wrote:
>
> ... the evidence I've seen suggests that ... most browsers are still
> using IDNA2003 or some hybrid involving IDNA2003, UTR46, and,
> sometimes, unofficial (and inconsistent) versions of Stringprep
> modified to reflect some or all Unicode versions since 3.2.
Yes, AFAIK. The WHATWG URL [sic] spec (which obsoletes RFCs 3986 & 3987
as far as (most?) web browser developers are concerned [0]) references
(indirectly) only IDNA2003.
It does this by normatively referencing these algorithms in UNICODE TR46
-- see:
<http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr46/#ToASCII> and
<http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr46/#ToUnicode>
Also, back when I was researching IDNA (for what became RFC6125 and
RFC6797), I exchanged notes with a developer at Opera. This was Fall
2011 and they were working on Opera 12. He indicated it implemented
IDNA2008 + RFC5895 "but with a few differences" (though, I do not know
what the current Opera browser implements IDNA).
> That makes many situations, not just HTTPS, quite confusing.
Indeed. See also:
wrt IDNA2003->IDNA2008 transitionn (was: IDN processing-related,
security considerations for draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec)
<http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2011-October/007170.html>
HTH,
=JeffH
[0] https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#goals
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
