[DNSOP] Status of IDNA

Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> Wed, 12 April 2017 11:36 UTC

Return-Path: <fweimer@redhat.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5BA5131672 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 04:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.923
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.923 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 frhUyN6DD6Eb for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 04:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39DB213166C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 04:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB41F6409A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:36:50 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com CB41F6409A
Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fweimer@redhat.com
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com CB41F6409A
Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (dhcp-192-212.str.redhat.com [10.33.192.212]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79E9677EA9 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:36:50 +0000 (UTC)
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <d087f7d0-5def-8700-c1f3-f0fb53adf698@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 13:36:49 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:36:50 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/RTtJhvjZkSWlLz0R1V8ZqsdHO_Q>
Subject: [DNSOP] Status of IDNA
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:36:53 -0000

What's the current standardization status of IDNA?

As far as I can tell, a lot of vendors are still stuck with the original 
IDNA standard (IDNA2003).  There are three or more competing successors, 
IDNA2008 as standardized by the IETF (without any tweaks), the Unicode 
IDNA standard TS46 (<http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr46/>, which is 
configurable and allegedly compatible with IETF IDNA2008, but is not 
because it yields different results than IETF IDNA2008), and the 
Mozilla/DENIC IDNA implementation in Firefox/Thunderbird 
(<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=479520> and other sources).

These aren't compatible.  You can see this by visiting 
<https://www.buße.de/> in different browsers.

Is there an ongoing effort to reconcile application behavior?  Different 
TLDs appear to expect different IDNA implementations.

One practical problem with IDNA2003 is that it prevents having Hebrew 
domain names containing ASCII digits.  Any of the IDNA2008 variants 
mentioned above will fix that, I think, but it's difficult to pick a 
variant to implement.  And I certainly don't want to implement per-TLD 
policies.

Thanks,
Florian