Subject: Re: [websec] IDNA Dependency and Migration text (was: Review of draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-06.txt)

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 09:57:26 -0700

Alexey states:
 >
 > On 3 May 2012, at 20:40, Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]> wrote:
 >
 >> 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
 >
 > We are setting ourselves up for some interop problems. We should bite the
 > bullet and through RFC 5894 or UTS 46 out.

These overall topics have been discussed in the past on..

   [email-masked]
   <http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update>

..and it seems to me this particular discussion should probably be taken over 
to that list. some pointers to likely pertinent prior threads below.

HTH,

=JeffH
------

Past threads on the idna-update@ list that I'm aware of that are specifically 
pertinent to the above include (there may also be others, see also further below)..

   referencing IDNA2008 (and IDNA2003?)
   http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2010-October/006757.html

   RFC5895 and UTS46 ?
   http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2010-October/006821.html

   IDN processing-related security considerations for 
draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec
   http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2011-September/007140.html

   wrt IDNA2008 migration (was: IDN processing-related...
   http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2011-September/007152.html

   wrt IDNA2003->IDNA2008 transitionn (was: IDN processing-related...
   http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2011-October/007170.html

Older threads re IDNA2003 - IDNA2008 transition (there also are definitely 
(many) other relevant threads)...

   Another Transition Plan Proposal
   http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2009-December/006255.html

   An idea for transition principles (see next thread for plain text doc 
version; but there were replies in this thread too)
   http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2009-December/006330.html

   Re-sending TXT form of Proposed IDNA2008 Transition Idea
   http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2009-December/006339.html

   PostWG IDNA2008 implementation, transition and deployment document preparation
   http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2009-December/006374.html

---
end