On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 09:49:55AM -0800, Rob Sayre wrote:
> That all sounds reasonable. But isn't this WG being incredibly intransigent
> by default?
It seems to me that It remains the case that this I-D is not the best
forum to litigate which U-labels are valid candidates for turning into
A-labels. Surely that belongs elsewhere. However it is that
applications (or their libraries) turn U-labels into A-labels, this I-D
describes how to match them against presented identifiers in
certificates.
Or perhaps, to say it differently, no matter what this I-D says on the
subject, it will not be the authoritative source on the topic, and can
only muddy the waters.
If there is a real prospect of reconciling IETF and Unicode
recommendations on internation domain names, that would probably need to
be a separate effort, that updates or obsoletes IDNA2008. I doubt
there's sufficient energy at the moment to start an IDNA2024 revision,
but if there is, this isn't the document to launch the process.
U-labels that are not compliant with IDNA2008, may face registration
barriers at eTLDs, and interoperability barriers in applications when
used further down the tree under eTLD+1 zone cuts. They may of course
work under particular domains for particular applications.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
