%% You should probably cite rfc8753 instead of this I-D. @techreport{klensin-idna-unicode-review-04, number = {draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review-04}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review/04/}, author = {Dr. John C. Klensin and Patrik Fältström}, title = {{IDNA Review for New Unicode Versions}}, pagetotal = 16, year = ** No value found for 'doc.pub_date.year' **, month = ** No value found for 'doc.pub_date' **, day = ** No value found for 'doc.pub_date.day' **, abstract = {The standards for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) require a review of each new version of Unicode to determine whether incompatibilities with prior versions 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.}, }