IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idna-update] [Ext] Re: emoji and security

Kim Davies <kim.davies@iana.org> Wed, 14 March 2018 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <kim.davies@iana.org>
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 773C6127444 for <idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.321
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 jMl8xgSgZhEa for <idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.icann.org (smtp01.icann.org [192.0.46.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44F5C1270FC for <idna-update@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from KIDA-6861.local (unknown [10.32.60.121]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp01.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FE12E0C1C; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 15:15:20 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 11:15:17 -0400
From: Kim Davies <kim.davies@iana.org>
To: Michel Suignard <michel@suignard.com>
Cc: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?B?RuRsdHN0cvZt?= <paf@frobbit.se>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, "idna-update@ietf.org" <idna-update@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20180314151515.GA70553@KIDA-6861.local>
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> <B365481D-F9B6-46AD-BC3A-CC98695131E2@frobbit.se> <DM5PR1901MB219746D7A8CC8E1699DDC773A2D10@DM5PR1901MB2197.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR1901MB219746D7A8CC8E1699DDC773A2D10@DM5PR1901MB2197.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idna-update/tJz8YjucLPlc8xjw9TWd5XN_EpA>
Subject: Re: [Idna-update] [Ext] Re: 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 15:15:23 -0000

Quoting Michel Suignard on Wednesday March 14, 2018:

> I want to show how on a concrete level not having a post Unicode 6.3
> IDN table is hurting work done in ICANN. Unicode 7.0 added support
> for some Myanmar minorities. 
...
> If we could use Unicode 7.0 repertoire as available in an
> updated IANA IDN2008 table, the root zone Integration Panel would have
...
> But at this point this is not even an option.

I think a point of clarification would be useful here. The IDNA tables
published by IANA is informative, not normative. Nothing in the
IDNA 2008 specification says these tables need to be used -- a full
implementation would derive their own list of PVALID etc. from Unicode
properties and some exception tables in RFC 5892. 

However, given the IDNA tables are posted, some IDNA 2008
implementations use them as a shortcut to greatly simplify their code.
As a consequence, the landscape of implementations is likely variable
because you have some implementations using the IANA-published tables
limited to the Unicode 6.3 repertoire, and others using more recent
versions because they are deriving from Unicode properties directly.

kim

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email