Re: [Acme] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-acme-acme-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

> On Aug 29, 2018, at 8:10 PM, Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> 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.