Impact of Punycode
John C Klensin
klensin at jck.com
Fri Mar 26 01:56:15 CET 2010
Folks, can I strongly recommend that you review the slides and
other materials from the Hiroshima IAB (Technical) plenary. I'm
not seeing anything new here.
--On Thursday, 25 March, 2010 20:47 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
<ajs at shinkuro.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:23:05AM +0000, Shawn Steele wrote:
>> An AD server serves UTF-8 machine names, such as in an
>> Intranet. The problem isn't the AD server per-se, but what is
>> a client supposed to do when it gets a non-ASCII address?
>> Query UTF-8? Query Punycode? Both?
> This is no change whatever from how the application had to work
> before, because when it received a series of 8-bit labels it
> had to know how to treat those 8-bit labels. Non-ASCII labels
> are clearly not in hostname format, and so they have to be
> interpreted by the application which has to know what to do
> with that label. Nothing has changed here.
>> What's a UTF-8 aware server supposed to do when it gets a
>> punycode address that matches a UTF-8 address that it has
> See above.
>> What's the server supposed to do if it gets a Unicode address
>> that matches a registered punycode address?
> See above. I won't keep repeating.
> The problem with these "UTF-8 aware servers" you're talking
> about is that the 8 bit addresses did not have a well-defined
> interoperating behaviour, because the early DNS specifications
> made the labels 8 bits, but said that everyone should use the
> 7 bit LDH syntax. Interoperation says that if you plan to work
> on the Internet with a wide variety of different systems, you
> should stick with behaviour that is well-defined,
> well-understood, and interoperable (this is the "conservative
> in what you send" part of the principle).
>> If I do a DNS query from my Intranet, how am I supposed to
>> know if I'm querying UTF-8 or Punycode?
> I guess you need to know what software you're running. And
> no, of course, end users don't need to know that. That's why
> system vendors need to be careful about shipping things that
> don't really work well given the protocols and operational
> practices already in place.
>> The only thing close to guidance I've heard is that DNS
>> absolutely should NOT respond to UTF-8 requests that match a
>> punycode record. Which would seem to me to be about the only
>> possible workaround for the disparity (try to treat them the
> Where do you read that? I think the advice in the documents
> is that a conforming implementation doesn't give DNS answers
> to U-labels, but to A-labels. Nothing there impinges in any
> way on the ability of an operator to operate with 8 bit labels
> (which are not U-labels, as is made clear in the
> definitions document).
>> Sorry for the ranting. I feel like when I mention that IDNA
>> might not be a "perfect" approach people respond like I'm
>> delusional. Maybe if I saw only the pure Internet root level
>> DNS old-ASCII side, it would be an elegant solution, but from
>> where I sit punycode is a pretty ill-fitting hack and is
>> causing lots of pain for lots of administrators, developers,
>> and users.
> Sure. IDNA is a way of hacking non-ascii characters in to a
> nearly-universally-deployed protocol that was implemented in
> many cases by people who didn't read the specifications,
> didn't read or couldn't find all of them, or who decided to do
> something that was maybe strictly legal but probably likely
> not to work that well with existing systems. The alternative
> appears to be DNSng and a forklift upgrade of the Internet.
> To the extent we're trying to serve users, that approach seems
> less fruitful.
More information about the Idna-update