Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA) Review for New Unicode Versions
RFC 8753
Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(April 2020; No errata)
Updates RFC 5892
Was draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review (individual in art area)
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | John Klensin , Patrik Fältström | ||
Last updated | 2020-04-15 | ||
Stream | Internent Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Formats | plain text html xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex | ||
Reviews | |||
Stream | WG state | (None) | |
Document shepherd | Pete Resnick | ||
Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2019-08-30) | ||
IESG | IESG state | RFC 8753 (Proposed Standard) | |
Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
Telechat date | |||
Responsible AD | Barry Leiba | ||
Send notices to | (None) | ||
IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack |
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Klensin Request for Comments: 8753 Updates: 5892 P. Fältström Category: Standards Track Netnod ISSN: 2070-1721 April 2020 Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA) Review for New Unicode Versions Abstract The standards for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) require a review of each new version of Unicode to determine whether incompatibilities with prior versions or other issues exist and, where appropriate, to allow the IETF to decide on the trade-offs between compatibility with prior IDNA versions and compatibility with Unicode going forward. That requirement, and its relationship to tables maintained by IANA, has caused significant confusion in the past. This document makes adjustments to the review procedure based on experience and updates IDNA, specifically RFC 5892, to reflect those changes and to clarify the various relationships involved. It also makes other minor adjustments to align that document with experience. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8753. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Brief History of IDNA Versions, the Review Requirement, and RFC 5982 3. The Review Model 3.1. Review Model Part I: Algorithmic Comparison 3.2. Review Model Part II: New Code Point Analysis 4. IDNA Assumptions and Current Practice 5. Derived Tables Published by IANA 6. Editorial Clarification to RFC 5892 7. IANA Considerations 8. Security Considerations 9. References 9.1. Normative References 9.2. Informative References Appendix A. Summary of Changes to RFC 5892 Appendix B. Background and Rationale for Expert Review Procedure for New Code Point Analysis Acknowledgments Authors' Addresses 1. Introduction The standards for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) require a review of each new version of Unicode to determine whether incompatibilities with prior versions or other issues exist and, where appropriate, to allow the IETF to decide on the trade-offs between compatibility with prior IDNA versions and compatibility with Unicode [Unicode] going forward. That requirement, and its relationship to tables maintained by IANA, has caused significant confusion in the past (see Section 3 and Section 4 for additional discussion of the question of appropriate decisions and the history of these reviews). This document makes adjustments to the review procedure based on nearly a decade of experience and updates IDNA, specifically the document that specifies the relationship between Unicode code points and IDNA derived properties [RFC5892], to reflect those changes and to clarify the various relationships involved. This specification does not change the requirement that registries at all levels of the DNS tree take responsibility for the labels they insert in the DNS, a level of responsibility that requires allowing only a subset of the code points and strings allowed by the IDNA protocol itself. That requirement is discussed in more detail in a companion document [RegRestr]. Terminology note: In this document, "IDNA" refers to the current version as described in RFC 5890 [RFC5890] and subsequent documents and sometimes known as "IDNA2008". Distinctions between it and the earlier version are explicit only where they are necessary for understanding the relationships involved, e.g., in Section 2.Show full document text