Subject: [http-state] IDNA and canonicalized host names

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:58:13 -0700

We have this language in -httpstate-cookie-16..

###

5.1.2. Canonicalized host names

    A canonicalized host name is the string generated by the following
    algorithm:

    1.  Convert the host name to a sequence of NR-LDH labels (see Section
        2.3.2.2 of [RFC5890]) or a sequence of A-labels according to the
        appropriate IDNA specification [RFC5891] or [RFC3490] (see
        Section 6.3 of this specification)

    2.  Concatenate the labels resulting from the previous step,
        separating each label from the next with a %x2E (".") character.

###

Per the prior-mentioned discussion on <idna-update@> that we've recently had, 
here's a stab at an update to step (1) above..

###

    1.  Convert the host name to a sequence of individual domain name labels,
        and convert each label that is not a NR-LDH label, to a A-label (see
        Section 2.3.2.1 of [RFC5890] for the fomer and latter), or to a
        "punycode label" (a label resulting from the "ToASCII" conversion in
        Section 4 of [RFC3490]), as appropriate (see Section 6.3 of this
        specification).

###

PLus, there were some ruffled feathers wrt our section 6.3..

###

6.3. IDNA dependency and migration

    IDNA2008 [RFC5890] supersedes IDNA2003 [RFC3490] but is not
    backwards-compatible.  For this reason, there will be a transition
    period (possibly of a number of years).  User agents SHOULD implement
    IDNA2008 [RFC5890] and MAY implement [Unicode Technical Standard #46
    <http://unicode.org/reports/tr46/>] in order to facilitate a smoother
    IDNA transition.  If a user agent does not implement IDNA2008, the
    user agent MUST implement IDNA2003 [RFC3490].

###

Here's a stab at a re-write of that..

###

    IDNA2008 [RFC5890] supersedes IDNA2003 [RFC3490]. However, 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 [Unicode Technical Standard #46 (UTS46)
    <http://unicode.org/reports/tr46/>] and/or [RFC5895] in order to facilitate
    their IDNA transition.  If a user agent does not implement IDNA2008, the
    user agent MUST implement IDNA2003 [RFC3490].

###

We should add a reference for [RFC5895].  I'm not sure whether UTS46 and 
[RFC5895] are mutually-exclusive. thus the "and/or" (something more to figure 
out...)

thanks,

=JeffH

---

From: Adam Barth <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:37:24 -0700

Done.

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 3:58 PM, =JeffH <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Per the prior-mentioned discussion on <idna-update@> that we've recently
> had, here's a stab at an update to step (1) above..
>
>
> ###
>
> (UTS46)
> [RFC5895] are mutually-exclusive. thus the "and/or" (something more to
> figure out...)
>
>
> thanks,
>
> =JeffH
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http-state mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state
>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:41:45 -0600

> [RFC5895] are mutually-exclusive. thus the "and/or" (something more to

It's "or", never "and" (UTS 46 and RFC 5895 are two ways of doing the
same thing). And IMHO both references need to be informative, not
normative, because neither of these is officially part of IDNA2008.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:47:30 -0600

>        Section 4 of [RFC3490]), as appropriate (see Section 6.3 of this

I think that's better. I'm not sure it's perfect, but nothing in the
land of internationalization ever is. :) In particular, IDNA folks might
not like the neologism "punycode label". But I think it's OK for the moment.

>    user agent MUST implement IDNA2003 [RFC3490].

Again, I think that's better but perhaps not quite perfect. However, we
can see further IDNA review during IETF Last Call, so let's ship what we
have, if Adam has time for one more submission before the deadline.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Adam Barth <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:48:42 -0700

> normative, because neither of these is officially part of IDNA2008.

I put it in as "or".  I don't recall whether I made them normative or
informative references.  However, I believe the submission deadline
has passed.

Adam

---

From: Adam Barth <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:50:55 -0700

> have, if Adam has time for one more submission before the deadline.

Yes.  I uploaded a draft with Jeff's text just before the deadline.

Adam