IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idna-update] emoji and security

"Patrik Fältström " <paf@frobbit.se> Wed, 14 March 2018 11:06 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
X-Original-To: idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DBA3129C51 for <idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 04:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.711
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.711 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 c7RfiCe3gE0A for <idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 04:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1981212711E for <idna-update@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 04:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.20.5.159] (unknown [67.203.214.34]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C3E726BD1; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 12:06:44 +0100 (CET)
From: "Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=" <paf@frobbit.se>
To: "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Cc: idna-update@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 07:06:41 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (2.0BETAr6106)
Message-ID: <B365481D-F9B6-46AD-BC3A-CC98695131E2@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <20180314011813.2vhpqle3bt726tbb@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <533bb471-da9b-64d0-76aa-a8a1251d256b@ix.netcom.com> <DM5PR1901MB219712F39A6297F9A147312DA2D30@DM5PR1901MB2197.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <20180313202505.ztersmy2z5xuxlvp@mx4.yitter.info> <DM5PR1901MB2197A704B3233E5236EB703AA2D20@DM5PR1901MB2197.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <ac2e51de-a9ad-c8ee-96b0-5b50a0e225c4@ix.netcom.com> <20180314011813.2vhpqle3bt726tbb@mx4.yitter.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_60880DE2-826A-4310-BA1A-AEDA5FCD7C8D_="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idna-update/SxoQw24NoxjAWhf40yT9W8UPBTo>
Subject: Re: [Idna-update] emoji and security
X-BeenThere: idna-update@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Internationalized Domain Names in Applications \(IDNA\) implementation and update discussions" <idna-update.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idna-update>, <mailto:idna-update-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idna-update/>
List-Post: <mailto:idna-update@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idna-update-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idna-update>, <mailto:idna-update-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 11:06:49 -0000

On 13 Mar 2018, at 21:18, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> But the IETF does not have, and does not want, authority to "keep them out".  That's a policy question, and one rather far from the IETF's area of expertise.  Indeed, that division of labour is precisely why the IANA root zone registry policy is set by someone other than the IETF, which sets the policies for IANA protocol parameter registries.

Correct.

The IETF Standard explicitly say that a registry must implement a policy for what code points they want to include, so by definition, and by design, the IDNA2008 is not a minimum set of code points. It is a maximum set of code points to be used.

   Patrik

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email