Comments on draft-ietf-idnabis-defs-10

John C Klensin klensin at jck.com
Sun Aug 30 20:32:24 CEST 2009



--On Monday, August 31, 2009 4:22 AM +1000 Wil Tan 
<wil at cloudregistry.net> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 5:17 PM, John C Klensin
> <klensin at jck.com> wrote:
>
>> --On Monday, August 24, 2009 23:24 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
>> <ajs at shinkuro.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > In a previous comment (see
>> > http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2009-July/00
>> > 497 0.html), I made a vague remark about something I find
>> > worrisome in this text in §2.3.2.1:
>> > ...
>>
>> These changes, with Paul's suggested modifications, have been
>> tentatively accepted and incorporated in the document.  Anyone
>> who objects should say so quickly.
>>
>>
> I posted a comment related to the definition of A-label some
> time ago, but the thread was digressed:
> http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2009-June/00455
> 8.html
>
> The issue is with case variants of A-labels. By DNS rules, as
> mentioned in several places in the idnabis-defs draft,
> A-labels are to be compared in a case independent manner.
> However, if certain characters in an A-label have been
> uppercased, the Punycode decoding algorithm (due to its
> mixed-case annotation feature) may produce invalid U-label
> because the ASCII characters will be in capital letter form.

Suggested fix?  Do I need to put a "force lower case for 
undecorated Latin (ASCII) characters" into the conversation step 
from A-labels to U-labels?

Suggested wording would be appreciated if so.

    john



More information about the Idna-update mailing list