Comments on draft-ietf-idnabis-defs-10
vint at google.com
Thu Sep 3 03:08:58 CEST 2009
under no circumstance would I recommend that this WG undertake any
modifications to punycode.
On Sep 2, 2009, at 1:21 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Thursday, September 03, 2009 01:39 +1000 Wil Tan
> <wil at cloudregistry.net> wrote:
>> Related note: in light of the discovery made by James that
>> Punycode can in fact output uppercase characters to represent
>> encoded non-ASCII codepoints, we could go back to
>> idnabis-defs-10, 18.104.22.168 and further qualify "output of the
>> Punycode algorithm". However, since practically all
>> implementations output to lowercase, I suppose it is not
> I'm reluctant to try to effectively modify Punycode by adjusting
> Defs. If this were really important enough, then it would be
> important enough to change the charter (again) and update RFC
> 3492 to remove the upper-case output and case-sensitive options,
> at least for IDNA purposes. I don't think it is important
> enough, but that is obvious just my opinion. As I indicated in
> an earlier note (which I think went to the whole list, but am
> not sure), if we get this round finished and then, at the
> appropriate time, move toward Draft Standard status for IDNA
> (including Punycode), the "is this feature actually supported
> and used" rule will take care of those features in a fairly
> clean way.
>>> Probably Rationale should be extended to discuss this issue
>>> the reasons for the "require lowercase" statement. I'd
>>> welcome text on that subject and advice as to where to put
>>> it, but will make something up if I don't hear from people.
>> I'm lousy at writing such texts but do the follow bullets
>> capture what you intend to say?
>> 1. Symmetry constraint between U-label and A-label is a
>> desirable property and key design goal of IDNA2008
>> 2. A-labels, being a subset of LDH-labels are sometimes stored
>> and used without preserving case.
>> 3. When that happens, we end up with having uppercase
>> characters in the Punycode decoded result, which makes it an
>> invalid U-label.
>> 4. This happens because of the Punycode
>> algorithm preserving the cases of the "basic code points" in
>> the decoding process.
>> 5. Because the Punycode encoding process (practically) never
>> outputs uppercase characters from valid U-labels, we know that
>> a valid A-label must not contain any uppercase character after
>> the "xn--" ACE prefix.
> Yes. That works for me... unless others have other suggestions,
> I'll try to turn it into text and get an interim version of
> Rationale posted RSN.
More information about the Idna-update