More detail: a sketchy idea for expressing zone policy
Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com
Wed Dec 9 22:39:12 CET 2009
I wouldn't call it a bad idea. Certainly any idea that might get us a bit better behavior is worth discussing :) You never know what might evolve from an idea.
I was kind of thinking that this is sort of related to the server-side mapping question. There was an earlier suggestion that moving mapping to the server side would be good. In that case I could imagine that any deviations from the standard mapping could be communicated between servers (though it seems hard). DNS, however seems very rigid with fairly simple mapping rules, so I'm not sure that'd get traction.
From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: , 09, 2009 11:55
To: idna-update at alvestrand.no
Subject: Re: More detail: a sketchy idea for expressing zone policy
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 06:17:23PM +0000, Shawn Steele wrote:
> Sort of. Most editors let you type http://whatever without actually
> looking to see if it goes anywhere. OWA just highlighted
> http://whatever when I typed it, for example.
I see what you mean. I wasn't supposing that this would happen all the time. My notion really was that we were trying to address the problem of _arriving_ somewhere in an ambiguous way. But of course you're right that if you store the fußball.example in 2003, and then .example upgrades to IDNA2008 with a policy "both PVALID", you may not know that the fußball.example you stored is really just fussball.example. Phooey. Well, nobody ever accused me of being unwilling to propose bad ideas in public.
ajs at shinkuro.com
Idna-update mailing list
Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update