Re: [Uta] IDNA in UTA
> Thanks! Yes, if the issue is to be settled, rfc6125bis is not the best battle ground. Nicely put, thanks. ___ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
Re: [Uta] IDNA in UTA
On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 04:34:15PM -0700, Rob Sayre wrote: > 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. Thanks! Yes, if the issue is to be settled, rfc6125bis is not the best battle ground. > You can inspect the problem here: > https://util.unicode.org/UnicodeJsps/idna.jsp Note that the example there is dated. In each of Firefox, Safari and Chrome faß.de is not "fass.de" (compatibility mode), but rather "xn--fa-hia.de". Yes, the Internet seems to run on UTS-46, but with compatibility mode disabled. So emoji, ... "work", but the compatibility crutches have largely been removed. https://xn--ls8h.la -- Viktor. ___ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
[Uta] IDNA in UTA
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
