Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA) Review for New Unicode Versions
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Protocol Action: 'IDNA Review for New Unicode Versions' to Proposed Standard (draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review-05.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'IDNA Review for New Unicode Versions' (draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review-05.txt) as Proposed Standard This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. The IESG contact person is Barry Leiba. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review/
Technical Summary The standards for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) require a review of each new version of Unicode to determine whether incompatibilities with prior version 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 clarify the various relationships involved. It also makes other minor adjustments to align that document with experience. Working Group Summary This is a document regarding recommendations to the registry and registrar community that could only be developed by experts on IDNA, of which the IETF has very few. A 4-week IETF-wide Last Call has been more than enough time for the i18ndir list to remind experts to take a final look and confirm that there is community consensus, insofar as that ever exists for these kinds of documents. Document Quality The shepherd has done a review of the document and thinks it is technically sound. The most controversial bit of this document is actually section 4: This document restores and clarifies that original language and intent: absent extremely strong evidence on a per-code point basis that preserving the validity status of possible existing (or prohibited) labels would cause significant harm, Unicode changes that would affect IDNA derived properties are to be reflected in IDNA exceptions that preserves the status of those labels. The shepherd is agnostic as to whether this is the correct move, but it is the only pragmatic choice given the state of the world, and there was no disagreement with that choice in any of the reviews. Personnel Pete Resnick is the document shepherd, and the responsible AD is Barry Leiba.