Re: [websec] Review of draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-06.txt

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 5/2/12 1:45 PM, =JeffH wrote:

>> 13.  Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Dependency
>>       and Migration
>>
>>     IDNA2008 obsoletes IDNA2003, but there are differences between the
>>     two specifications, and thus there can be differences in processing
>>     (e.g., converting) domain name labels that have been registered under
>>     one from those registered under the other.  There will be a
>>     transition period of some time during which IDNA2003-based domain
>>     name labels will exist in the wild.  User agents SHOULD implement
>>     IDNA2008 [RFC5890] and MAY implement [RFC5895] (see also Section 7 of
>>     [RFC5894]) or [UTS46] in order to facilitate their IDNA transition.
>>
>> I might be kicking a dead horse here, but MAY sounds a bit weak.
>> I especially dislike having the choice between 2 incompatible specs,
>> I think this might cause some interop problems.
> 
> As far as I can tell, having had fairly extensive discussions with IDNA
> folk both privately and on various lists such as idna-update@, the above
> relects the the unfortunate state of the world at this time. For
> instance, Pete Resnick signed off on the language in the spec in this
> message to websec@...
> 
> Re: [websec] wrt IDN processing-related security considerations for
> draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg01015.html
> 
> we should probably fork off any further discussion on this topic to that
> thread.

Unfortunately, I think the text that Jeff produced is about the best
we're going to do right now.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/