I-D Action:draft-faltstrom-5892bis-02.txt

Simon Josefsson simon at josefsson.org
Sun Feb 20 16:14:05 CET 2011

Mark Davis ☕ <mark at macchiato.com> writes:

> That would work fine for me, with a slight change to wording.
>> Mark Davis also contributed to the document, but do not believe the
>> description of the issues in this document is optimal.
> =>
>> Mark Davis also contributed to the document, but does not believe the
>> solution for the issues discussed in this document is optimal.

Mark, what solution would you have preferred?  I may have missed your
position from earlier discussion, but if we are close to a IETF-wide
last call on this it may be useful re-iterate your point succinctly to
see if others agree.

Personally I feel uncomfortable with changes that takes us from two
different compliant IDNA algorithms to three different compliant IDNA
algorithms depending on when in time you implemented the standards:
IDNA2003, IDNA2008-original, IDNA2008-revised.  This is damaging from a
security perspective.  I don't know what the alternative is though.


(If we consider non-compliant IDNA algorithms, there is also two other
IDNA2003 variants in wide use: 1) with improper PR-29 fix, and 2) with
improper dot-separation.  On the client-side, the non-compliant
implementations are probably more common than compliant IDNA2003.)

More information about the Idna-update mailing list