Comments on draft-ietf-idnabis-defs-10

[jean-michel bernier de portzamparc]

Paul,
I am afraid we all have difficulties with Elisabeth's elliptic mind, because
she don't use to consider the technical/individual details (there can be
many of them), but the implied architectural/strategic whole. I think I
would support your proposition, but I am not sure I understand  "A pair of
A-labels MUST be compared using a case-preserving comparison.". Moreover,
the way you phrase it seems to integrate the case-preservation in the
protocol, i.e. in the ACE and not to keep it as a part of its use?

The rule proposed by Andrew Sullivan seems quite systematic and clear?

1. The encoding of A-label1 according to [RFC3492] results in U-label1.
2. The decoding of U-label2 according to [RFC3492] results in A-label2.
3. A-label1 is equivalent to A-label2 according to DNS matching rules for
labels.
4. U-label1 is bistring equivalent to U-label2.

We felt it addressed our point "References to the lower/uppercase image can
be understood by DNS old-timers, but is confusing to newcomers, as it does
not reflect the same functionality and because U-label/A-label
lower/uppercase treatment is not the same." since everyone knows that
punycode is case preserving.

Best
Portzamparc
an IETF user


2009/8/31 Paul Hoffman <phoffman at imc.org>

> At 12:35 AM +0200 8/31/09, Elisabeth Blanconil wrote:
> >"(i) A change to the "punycode" algorithm or to the ACE approach to
> >encoding names  in the DNS."
> >-> this is now what you propose.
>
> Wrong: no one other than you has proposed any change to either.
>
> >"(ii) A change to the ACE prefix from "xn--"
> >-> you now propose a change from "xn--" to "$$--"
>
> You have both misattributed Vint's statement to Wil and completely
> misunderstood Vint's statement. The string "$$" does not appear in any of
> the WG documents.
>
> >"(iii) A change to the basic approach taken in the design team
> >documents (Namely: independence from Unicode version and elimination
> >of character mapping in the protocol)"
> >-> Vint already proposed the change of the last sub-point.
>
> Correct. That is a proposed charter change that is being considered by the
> IETF. So far, we have heard no objections.
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090831/6309376f/attachment.htm