Standardizing on IDNA 2003 in the URL Standard
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Fri Aug 23 17:23:10 CEST 2013
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:19:02PM +0200, Mark Davis ? wrote:
> registries disallow non-IDNA2008 URLs. I say URLs, because the registries
> need to not only disallow them in SLDs (eg http://☃.com), they
> *also*need to forbid their subregistries from having them in Nth-level
> domains
> (that is, disallow http://☃.blogspot.ch/ = xn--n3h.blogspot.ch).
This isn't something that they do today. Indeed, there is nothing to
prevent a site from putting a label there that is just the relevant
raw UTF-8 bits. The thing we use to avoid this is "it doesn't work".
In a different context, Dennis Jennings has been arguing for similar
rules as well, and it's a mistake. We do not _want_ deep labels to
have to follow the same rules as for names at the second or third
levels. For instance, we want top-level domain registries to permit
only LDH-labels (of some sort, including A-labels). But LDH-labels
don't include underscores. Does that mean that we'd want to ban (say)
SRV or DKIM TXT records? I think not.
The DNS is not a global database with consistent policy. That's a
deep down design feature, not a bug, and if people think that it
_needs_ to have a consistent policy, then we need a different naming
system.
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list