IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [I18nrp] Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-unicode11-05.txt> (IDNA2008 and Unicode 11.0.0) to Informational RFC

"Patrik Fältström " <paf@frobbit.se> Wed, 05 December 2018 07:56 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
X-Original-To: i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFFDC129A87 for <i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 23:56:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.722
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.722 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=frobbit.se
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 7BqmrWNgjH0w for <i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 23:56:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [85.30.129.185]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D87D9129533 for <i18nrp@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 23:56:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [77.72.226.228] (unknown [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:0:a812:db3b:3bc3:c7a8]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 72A5E234AF; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 08:56:28 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=frobbit.se; s=mail; t=1543996588; bh=r5NNGao8awqQQ2qDUvyPLMjt3se0bbmJG1831Nf1IzI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Oir6mKF7XJ4lBZWLGlerEzoZtaJzlBYQvyS2Rgq/teR2g/KQlsez7Y5+JwpxY/p3/ 0XBr8wq/cWuu379KLkkhF5ZX1MHMSxkzeRQnZ4BRTOwOVT0IL4FBvD5ASAQ5d/NY6G mWIDL86bxmqUIVQxeXj+roDzqsnq+S+3pwOUFw3M=
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Cc: Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>, i18nrp@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 08:56:27 +0100
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.2r5568)
Message-ID: <EC12FDAE-4ABD-4AD3-A35A-B39D2C8A0AE0@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <8885EE4C-412E-4337-A099-66354A36CEA1@vpnc.org>
References: <154385119878.18333.5085298134102919486.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <FF6F9EB9-C73B-4EC0-AC4F-3E3BFBABA0AB@vpnc.org> <8E20D432-01B0-4B52-80BB-3348C5FE73AF@vpnc.org> <CC73FC25-92FC-4822-B267-15C41CE450F2@frobbit.se> <D81CDFF3-8CDF-4168-9CEA-E8DC3A133B73@vpnc.org> <217ede0e-ea1f-bb31-a276-f8c618c71278@ix.netcom.com> <8885EE4C-412E-4337-A099-66354A36CEA1@vpnc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_A1E47297-5198-4C3F-A527-DECFC7A195D0_="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i18nrp/_gPU2zyOdI9ftW7AQRk4ySld6-8>
Subject: Re: [I18nrp] Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-unicode11-05.txt> (IDNA2008 and Unicode 11.0.0) to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: i18nrp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internationalization Review Procedures <i18nrp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i18nrp>, <mailto:i18nrp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i18nrp/>
List-Post: <mailto:i18nrp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i18nrp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp>, <mailto:i18nrp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 07:56:33 -0000

On 4 Dec 2018, at 19:21, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> However, I think Patrik actively wants to have his draft suggest registry policies that match IDNS2008.

There are three things I want to do:

1. Say that for Unicode version up to and including 11.0.0, IETF should follow the Unicode Standard

2. Registries should really implement IDNA2008 and nothing else

3. Registries should not "just" allow all PVALID (etc) code points, but also include a conservative registration policy

I do though not see (3) is in violation with other documents. It just emphasizes the same thing already said elsewhere. For example in the "troublesome characters" draft there is a suggestion on a method to use when developing one such policy.

   paf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email