IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Potential issues in RFC 3986

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sun, 04 January 2015 08:43 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0B981A7023 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 00:43:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uD40kgBLMh1L for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 00:43:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00F811A7022 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 00:43:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.160] ([84.187.62.205]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MJngW-1Y8miC0AzM-0018yq; Sun, 04 Jan 2015 09:43:30 +0100
Message-ID: <54A8FD21.10206@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 09:43:13 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
References: <20140926010029.26660.82167.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <EAACE200D9B0224D94BF52CF2DD166A425A68A90@ex10mb6.qut.edu.au> <CACweHNBEYRFAuw9-vfeyd_wf703cvM3ykZoRMqAokRFYG_O7hQ@mail.gmail.com> <DM2PR0201MB09602B351692D424A49C6B0DC3650@DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CACweHNBN_Bv=jeXQ_VwXi2HzHKNEwZJ1NiF-BJJo_9-mhO60gQ@mail.gmail.com> <54A5730C.8040501@ninebynine.org> <54A583DD.9010602@intertwingly.net> <54A59651.4060306@ninebynine.org> <54A59B26.5000408@intertwingly.net> <54A6AABF.4060406@ninebynine.org> <54A6B6DF.1010206@intertwingly.net> <54A6BB22.2060203@gmx.de> <54A6C01A.6020000@intertwingly.net> <54A6CD33.3080101@gmx.de> <54A6E5F1.3070006@intertwingly.net>
In-Reply-To: <54A6E5F1.3070006@intertwingly.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:rBvkleASDJnGPlSkedGrYd0gCqY4rbOJewxPJb/co+n3VUxckO8 g0nUb79OjPc5sgrcYE6xEVrXRl5dwizL9iLR1tqibDUBUZVLRci8ZIqgJp/TfIrZedUyAkG Iji1fUX1on/3S+G5tp3mUUp0Q1vTcQLCQf9I8FB5oyYqR8tlwloZEwjk2e16XsD7Toomy/o nWetdfuTmk80QVjtxas/g==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/uIj5z0pJzVbNrv4KwgdYU2tD6XE
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Potential issues in RFC 3986
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 08:43:36 -0000

On 2015-01-02 19:39, Sam Ruby wrote:
> ...
> Since you agree that RFC 3986 is likely incorrect wrt IDNA advice, can I
> get you to suggest a test case that demonstrates this?
>
> The master source for these tests is here:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/blob/master/url/urltestdata.txt
>
> A pull request would be appreciated.  A detailed suggestion with the
> same information (a source string, a base URI, and what the expected
> values for each of the components) also works.
> ...

My understanding is that whatever IDNA-related problems might be in the 
spec, they won't be observable with parsing tests alone; we would need 
to observe that actually gets on the wire when (for instance) the HTTP 
request is made (such as what the DNS lookup is).

> ...

Best regards, Julian

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status