idnits 2.17.1 draft-faltstrom-5892bis-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (June 9, 2011) is 4676 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'Unicode6' Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group P. Faltstrom, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Cisco 4 Intended status: Standards Track P. Hoffman, Ed. 5 Expires: December 11, 2011 VPN Consortium 6 June 9, 2011 8 The Unicode code points and IDNA - Unicode 6.0 9 draft-faltstrom-5892bis-05.txt 11 Abstract 13 This memo documents IETF consensus for IDNA derived character 14 properties related to the three code points, existing in Unicode 5.2, 15 that changed property values when version 6.0 was released. The 16 consensus is that no update is needed to RFC 5892 based on the 17 changes made in Unicode 6.0. 19 Status of this Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 11, 2011. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 43 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 44 publication of this document. Please review these documents 45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 49 described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 1.1. U+0CF1 KANNADA SIGN JIHVAMULIYA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 1.2. U+0CF2 KANNADA SIGN UPADHMANIYA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 1.3. U+19DA NEW TAI LUE THAM DIGIT ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 2. IETF Consensus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 1. Introduction 66 RFC 5892 [RFC5892] specifies an algorithm that was defined when 67 version 5.0 (later updated to version 5.2) [Unicode5.2] was the 68 current version of Unicode, and it also defines a derived property 69 value based on that algorithm. Unicode 6.0 [Unicode6] has changed 70 GeneralCategory of three code points that were allocated in Unicode 71 5.2 or earlier. This implies the derived property value differs 72 depending on whether the property definitions used are from Unicode 73 5.2 or 6.0. These are non-backward-compatible changes as described 74 in section 5.1 of RFC 5892. 76 The three code points are: 78 1.1. U+0CF1 KANNADA SIGN JIHVAMULIYA 80 The GeneralCategory for this character changes from So to Lo. This 81 implies that the derived property value changes from DISALLOWED to 82 PVALID. 84 1.2. U+0CF2 KANNADA SIGN UPADHMANIYA 86 The GeneralCategory for this character changes from So to Lo. This 87 implies that the derived property value changes from DISALLOWED to 88 PVALID. 90 1.3. U+19DA NEW TAI LUE THAM DIGIT ONE 92 The GeneralCategory for this character changes from Nd to No. This 93 implies that the derived property value changes from PVALID to 94 DISALLOWED. 96 2. IETF Consensus 98 No change to RFC 5892 is needed based on the changes made in Unicode 99 6.0. 101 This consensus does not imply that no changes will be made to RFC 102 5892 for all future updates of The Unicode Standard. 104 This RFC is being produced because 6.0 is the first version of 105 Unicode to be released since IDNA2008 was published. 107 3. IANA Considerations 109 IANA is to update the derived property value registry according to 110 RFC 5892 and property values as defined in The Unicode Standard 111 version 6.0. 113 4. Security Considerations 115 When the algorithm presented in RFC 5892 is applied using the 116 property definitions of Unicode Standard Version 6.0, the result will 117 be different from when it is applied using the property definitions 118 of Unicode 5.2 for the three code points discussed in this document 119 in addition to the changes for code points being unassigned in 120 Unicode 5.2. The three code points are unlikely to occur in 121 internationalized domain names, however, so the security implications 122 of the changes are minor. 124 5. Acknowledgements 126 The main contributors are (in alphabetical order) Eric Brunner- 127 Williams, Vint Cerf, Tina Dam, Martin Duerst, John Klensin, Mark 128 Davis, Pete Resnick, Markus Scherer, Andrew Sullivan, Kenneth 129 Whistler and Nicholas Williams. 131 Not all contributors believe the solution for the issues discussed in 132 this document is optimal. 134 6. Normative References 136 [RFC5892] Faltstrom, P., "The Unicode Code Points and 137 Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA)", 138 RFC 5892, August 2010. 140 [Unicode5.2] 141 The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version 142 5.2.0", Unicode 5.0.0, Boston, MA, Addison-Wesley ISBN 143 0-321-48091-0, as amended by Unicode 5.2.0 144 http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.2.0/, 2009, 145 . 147 [Unicode6] 148 The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version 149 6.0.0", October 2010. 151 Authors' Addresses 153 Patrik Faltstrom (editor) 154 Cisco 156 Email: paf@cisco.com 158 Paul Hoffman (editor) 159 VPN Consortium 161 Email: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org