Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Digest, Vol 125, Issue 31

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 13 April 2017 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 60224131610 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=Xkdyd3jd; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=P7H0mXih
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 82BSTMhAgnBC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5CDA1315DD for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:01:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3384EBD996 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 19:01:27 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1492110087; bh=EfqQsbW1PyYalimFC9Zqb3zQcg5vb8OB6qvCVkpFZ7E=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Xkdyd3jdWV7tjkb3/NFB8atftpx5ouHwMCn9xKOGx+xamErGDzKp1CK1r4An/0sE+ 9b5AURqmFYYpvOxehFyct+wFyHK6U3tLxDzNuLKJ4C6/jX4CoD4xbQPqbRq/da7878 hnpLrIx9xUF63FZUdK7nFcZERrVlvUrQWj+Lkz68=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3RZjyqOEx4C3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 19:01:26 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 15:01:24 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1492110086; bh=EfqQsbW1PyYalimFC9Zqb3zQcg5vb8OB6qvCVkpFZ7E=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=P7H0mXihjwYjLM0VN1yvKS0PHVjIZR1fareVwOVQ3/1lEzaRdxH+bs3oqVKKCqWgj 8lAoPLcoFqHLaYoMhrsXesP0gaksnXiCUOjre7RdTLpumb7OxX7nj5afUiAI1PC5Mk IUvSNOj4Wb5zPq8s2PngKYSNuZIKHqYWskTcG/xo=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170413190124.GM6422@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <mailman.878.1492083018.3988.dnsop@ietf.org> <510A6A22-BCC3-45AB-909B-50BF6AF2F02D@dukhovni.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <510A6A22-BCC3-45AB-909B-50BF6AF2F02D@dukhovni.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/eYIJ1jOobH4I_ceesIdCSfoYnUM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Digest, Vol 125, Issue 31
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: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 19:02:24 -0000

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 02:41:20PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> What I should have said is that the variant with the upper case
> first letter is invalid (as opposed to being "different") in
> IDNA2008.  This is IMHO a poor user interface, so running code
> will generally go with UTS#46 (increasingly non-transitional)
> mappings.

Yes, everyone _knew_ it was troublesome.  But you can do that case
folding operation without embracing all of UTS#46 and getting some of
the problems, too.

The basic problem with UTS#46 is that it contains a number of quite
good ideas and some things that are harmful.  Worse, the embrace of
something like it by WHATWG has caused even more trouble, because the
answer that one gets from WHATWG any time one raises any of the issues
with their stance is that "nobody uses" the problematic cases, and so
they don't count.  At least UTS#46 doesn't take that stance about
(say) ZWJ and ZWNJ, but I'm entirely sympathetic with Florian's
original complaint upthread that the whole situation is a mess because
of too many options.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com