Re: [idn] pool deadline imminent

[David Hopwood <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Russ Rolfe wrote:
> Martin Duerst wrote:
> > At 17:46 01/07/12 +0000, Adam M. Costello wrote:
> >> I didn't really understand until this morning that any proposal that
> >> doesn't have seven supporters by tomorrow will be out of the running.

Did that only apply to ACE proposals? I've been reading the list archives
to get an idea of where the group is up to, and I have some ideas that
haven't been proposed in any of the current drafts.

> > Just for the record: If anybody is working on a UTF-8 based
> > (or even ACE/UTF-8 mixed) solution, they herewith all have
> > my support (I won't tell them one-by-one).

I'm working on such a solution; for lack of a better name I'll call it
IDN-8. It is ACE + UTF-8, but with ACE restricted to only the places
where it is needed: RFC 2822 headers and SMTP commands/responses.
UTF-8 is used almost everywhere else, including on the wire for DNS
queries. The most important changes that need to be made are to resolvers,
although applications can link with a compatibility library so that they
work even if the resolver hasn't been changed.

In practice ACE names will leak, and so there are various measures to
minimise any problems caused by that. nameprep is used for
canonicalization and to define which names are valid. The exact choice
of ACE is not critical: maximum lengths are mainly determined by
the efficiency of UTF-8. New or updated software is required to
understand UTF-8 everywhere (including RFC 2822 headers and SMTP
commands/responses).

Can I take it that there is sufficient support for a solution along
these lines that it is worth me writing it up as a formal I-D?

- -- 
David Hopwood <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>

Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/
RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5  0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01
Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a
public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been
seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBO1O/MzkCAxeYt5gVAQGm/Af/fWwu5DVKw8yK8T/VBfOTYRzNCvqlQbNM
B/edOs9If9GP4aTMPPjFeXCyaqMqYZx7n2KAjTyoWIEUYiA3hHKZYbDM1OQjQLPa
8GDZqGi/nxzAn95X13DpBlgtqRT8m7IYf36M9DdBxJWMOmlBJ5Pq/TSHbDdCCjdW
/QHdH6+72mnR/aHcPilqLRr7YNW+ZwBeAcL6FcCV2z22TckYGhM+P3XAplUVdRsX
U/yW4ZQ/GyJwds36fAG6osAVvrGWHCcwfEvhHyFwyFJ9bN59eboWuEjLNVzX1SeG
okxjWoggh17mTBAUm2VdUugyp9NbqTWWEiQmFtEg3uVCAseHoboDlg==
=QfE/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----