IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC: draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04.txt

Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> Wed, 27 April 2011 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <simon@josefsson.org>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49ACAE07ED for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:36:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ovcwwXbwyvSE for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from yxa-v.extundo.com (yxa-v.extundo.com [213.115.69.139]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00620E07E6 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from latte.josefsson.org (c80-216-4-108.bredband.comhem.se [80.216.4.108]) (authenticated bits=0) by yxa-v.extundo.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id p3RHZqYZ030079 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:35:54 +0200
From: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>
To: Stéphane Lancel <stelancel@gmail.com>
References: <503575932.12389@cnnic.cn> <87mxjc21vi.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <BANLkTik9qxNX-rFL+2mmfxcZa2Hzn4teyw@mail.gmail.com> <20110427140644.GH7329@crankycanuck.ca> <BANLkTi=VvEgtqWuKJte+vDOBzFhsGg0L7w@mail.gmail.com>
OpenPGP: id=B565716F; url=http://josefsson.org/key.txt
X-Hashcash: 1:22:110427:vint@google.com::CfLRT1OVR4Z8YckS:496z
X-Hashcash: 1:22:110427:idna-update@alvestrand.no::ftSjRfMnyXfolBUc:6cO+
X-Hashcash: 1:22:110427:stelancel@gmail.com::Wq8QmED502UnF/Y0:D19s
X-Hashcash: 1:22:110427:apps-discuss@ietf.org::t/xwJAsCN8H6gKId:Bojc
X-Hashcash: 1:22:110427:ajs@shinkuro.com::kCJoDoN9jJJ+iva7:S9zO
X-Hashcash: 1:22:110427:iucg@ietf.org::lCiNo9BoWYvgVtJV:WbIr
X-Hashcash: 1:22:110427:yaojk@cnnic.cn::RWCjVsMiQTS3NI/K:blA+
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:35:52 +0200
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=VvEgtqWuKJte+vDOBzFhsGg0L7w@mail.gmail.com> ("Stéphane Lancel"'s message of "Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:49:18 +0200")
Message-ID: <87pqo7zjev.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110016 (No Gnus v0.16) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97 at yxa-v
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Cc: idna-update@alvestrand.no, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC: draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:36:08 -0000

(I'm limiting the cc list to just idna-update and apps-discuss.)

Stéphane Lancel <stelancel@gmail.com> writes:

> I am sorry because I am not really expert in PVALID issues (changes, etc.),
> but I understood that PVALID once, PVALID for ever. I realize with this
> Draft that this means at character level not at codepoint level. Or am I
> wrong?

The "PVALID once PVALID forever" invariant will not be true if this
draft is approved.  However I'm not saying that should be an absolute
axiom.  There could be cases where we want to disallow some strings that
used to be permitted because they cause significant problems (for
similar reasons some code points are disallowed today).  I would prefer
case-by-case decisions.  What I'm not seeing here is an explanation why
this code point is so problematic that we must disallow it.  The code
point doesn't even seem to be used in IDNs.

/Simon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email