Re: [Idna-update] Updating the review procedure in RFC 5892 for new Unicode versions

John C Klensin <> Mon, 05 August 2019 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C7DC1201EC for <>; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 07:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id prnW-bjX8IAv for <>; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 07:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95F3612018A for <>; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 07:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1hudcS-000Cis-Fk; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 10:05:48 -0400
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 10:05:43 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Jaap Akkerhuis <>
cc:, =?UTF-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?= <>
Message-ID: <6997E405970BEB5C16A7292C@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <B06E9C00290B5B0B21C0851D@PSB> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idna-update] Updating the review procedure in RFC 5892 for new Unicode versions
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Internationalized Domain Names in Applications \(IDNA\) implementation and update discussions" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 14:05:52 -0000

--On Monday, August 5, 2019 12:39 +0200 Jaap Akkerhuis
<>; wrote:

> I have reviewed this document and do support the piblication. I
> specifically like that it explains the confusion about the
> non-authoritaive IANA IDNA tables.

Thanks.  It started becoming obvious to Patrik and myself when
the complaints about not updating the tables stopping work
started becoming loud over a year ago, more clear when the IAB
issued the statement that I interpreted as "just get on with
it", and completely obvious when in-depth discussions of
draft-faltstrom-unicode11 started, that a clarification was

If this clarification does not end that confusion, the IETF
should consider taking that IANA registry and tables down
entirely, perhaps replacing them with entries in some version
control system that are "owned" by the designated expert who
creates them.  But let's hope that this will suffice.

thanks again,