New versions of Protocol (-04) and Rationale (-02)

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Tue Sep 16 17:44:29 CEST 2008


At 17:09 16/09/2008, Erik van der Poel wrote:
>If an attempt is made to convert the label to Unicode, the Punycode
>decoding algorithm MUST be used, and if that fails, the label MUST be
>rejected. If it succeeds, the tests in Section 5.5 and conversion in
>Section 5.6 MUST be performed, and if either of those fail or the
>resulting label is not identical to the original label that started
>with "xn--", then the label MUST be rejected.
>
>Or is this beginning to look too much like the algorithmic description
>found in IDNA2003?

Since we know that:

- 50% of the U-label cannot result in A-label using punycode
- that .su has a policy (as will have other ccTLDs) not to pre-check 
"xn--" labels
- that punycode has now a well defined perimeter and operates at 
application level

I object such wording as it would make "IETF illegal" some planed or 
existing usages. Imposing strong wording without having the 
architectural capacity to enforce it, is calling for trouble as many 
will not reject the non-punycodable labels and some will use them.
jfc




More information about the Idna-update mailing list