Archaic scripts
Lisa Dusseault
ldusseault at commerce.net
Fri May 9 15:58:04 CEST 2008
On May 8, 2008, at 4:01 PM, Erik van der Poel wrote:
>
> If we lock down the DISALLOWED set too tightly, we may regret it
> later. One way to avoid locking it down is to recommend that
> burned-in-ROM and other unupgradable software only use protocols that
> use LDH- and A-labels. All pieces of software, whether IDNA-aware or
> not, are explicitly permitted to look up Punycode labels, without
> decoding them to check for DISALLOWED, CONTEXT*, etc.
Not that this point is essential to most of your argument, but
recommending that unupgradable software only use certain protocols is
a completely infeasible requirement or recommendation for the IETF to
make. Even if we thought such a recommendation would be paid
attention to, there's no bright line between "upgradable" and
"unupgradable" software -- even software that is in theory upgradable
is often in practice locked into particular versions for years,
skipping even vital security upgrades. So even if implementors
followed such a requirement, we still can't expect timely upgrades of
codepoint listings.
There's also no bright line between protocols or software that use
LDH- and A-labels and those that don't, right? As you point out, even
IDNA-unaware software may look up Punycode labels, and naturally those
implementations won't follow requirements we make on limiting lookups.
Lisa
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list