Updating RFC 5890-5893 (IDNA 2008) to Full Standard (was: Re: Lookup for reserved LDH labels)

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Thu Nov 8 05:18:05 CET 2012

On 2012/11/07 23:42, John C Klensin wrote:

> Everyone,
> RFC 5890-5893 were published over two years ago.  Is there
> interest in reviewing them and trying to advance them to Full
> Standard (I assume that 5894 and 5895 would have to be updated
> as well, but haven't studied that issue)?  Doing so would
> obviously provide an opportunity to insert the sort of text that
> Andrew proposes.  Speaking very personally, I would be willing
> to do the work after the first of the year -- especially if
> people feel that some clarifications are needed-- but only if
> the discussion topic is simply about places where the specs can
> be made more clear.  If people are going to take it as an
> opportunity to revisit old decisions -- such as the restrictions
> on what gets looked up-- then I think trying to do a revision
> would cause more harm (and wasted energy) than good.
> Again, just my opinion; YMMD.

Hello John,

I think this should happen sooner or later. However, Anne van Kesteren 
recently pointed out that the major browsers haven't yet done too much 
with respect to implementing UTR 46, which I'd guess implies that they 
haven't yet implemented much of IDNA 2008, either (Anne, can you confirm 
or clarify?). Given that browsers are an important part of IDNA users, 
it might be prudent to wait for some more time and see what issues might 
come up from that side.

(That was also why I asked Marcos about deployment of "ß"; the story was 
that registries would first deploy these with the respective bundlings 
or restrictions, and then browsers could move ahead and resolve them 

Regards,   Martin.

More information about the Idna-update mailing list