The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> writes: > The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group > WG (appsawg) to consider the following document: > - 'The Unicode code points and IDNA - Unicode 6.0' > <draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard Dear IESG, Is the intention that this document will update RFC 5892 or not? The document does not contain a "Updates:" header but the draft name suggests otherwise to me, hence my question. If the document does not update RFC 5892 (or some other document), I support publishing this document because it will not affect my implementation of RFC 5892. If the document updates RFC 5892, in order to remain compliant with the RFCs I would have to modify my implementation and make a backwards incompatible change. Today U+19DA converts to xn--pkf. With this document, I would have to raise an error for that input instead. I believe a case-by-case evaluation for each modified code-point is a good way to determine whether or not to add an exception in the IDNA tables. I haven't seen any discussion why U+19DA is so harmful that it has to be disallowed. On the contrary, everyone appears to agree that the code point is not widely used and the implications of continue permitting it are minor. Thus I would support publication of the document after adding U+19DA to table BackwardCompatible (G) as PVALID. I do realize that I may be in the rough part of the consensus here, which happens, but I want to provide my feedback for the record and allow the decision process to proceed. At least I will be able to shift blame to someone else if/when my users gets confused by this. :-) /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf