wrt IDNA2008 migration (was: IDN processing-related security considerations for draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec)
Mark Davis ☕
mark at macchiato.com
Sun Oct 2 02:27:00 CEST 2011
The third choice, of course, was to maintain backwards compatibility with
2003 for all characters in Unicode 3.2, and just extend the same principles
to new characters. That is a much easier migration path...
We've seen this before. XML 1.1 only had a small breaking-compatibility
changes, but those changes were enough to completely doom it.
But as you say, that was not the rough consensus of the WG.
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 16:18, John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com> wrote:
> --On Friday, September 30, 2011 12:59 -0700 "=JeffH"
> <Jeff.Hodges at KingsMountain.com> wrote:
> > while investigating this stuff I heard that the "DNS world"
> > is moving to IDNA2008 -- not exactly sure what that means --
> > registry/registrars, resolver code, ... ?
> > But given the deltas between IDNA2008, IDNA2008 + RFC5895,
> > IDNA2008 + UTS46, and IDNA2003, it seems to me that it'd be a
> > good thing if we can try to get more uniform IDNA2008 adoption
> > overall, i.e. bite the bullet now rather than later when it's
> > a lot bigger.
> That, of course, reflects the rough consensus of the WG.
> Otherwise, the best solution (no incompatibilities at all, no
> transition, etc.) might well have been "IDNA2003 forever" with
> an attitude toward those whose characters didn't appear in
> Unicode 3.2 or were badly handled in IDNA2003 of "to bad, get
> used to it".
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Idna-update