Parsing the issues and finding a middle ground -- another attempt
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com
Tue Mar 3 21:46:19 CET 2009
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 03:27:11PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
> >> (iii) We tell folks on the lookup side that, if a label in
> >> native-character form is invalid under IDNA2008 but valid
> >> under IDNA2003, they SHOULD apply the IDNA2003 mappings and
> >> look the thing up. Note that this implies two tests but only
> >> one lookup in the DNS. ...
> >
> > If we made that a MUST, I'd be happy with it. If it is not a
> > MUST, then we can always have two kinds of implementations,
> > which will inevitably cause some interoperability problems.
>
> I said "SHOULD" because, in IETF-speak, MUST implies that there
> are no exceptions and, in particular, no cases in which an
> implementation (or application specification) might reasonably
> insist on a "no mapping" approach for absolute precision about
> what is being done.
What about something along these lines:
If a label in native-character form is invalid under IDNA2008 but
valid under IDNA2003, an application SHOULD apply the IDNA2003
mapping, and MUST apply the IDNA2003 mapping by default.
Applications MAY provide a mechanism to disable the IDNA2003
mappings according to local policy. Applications MUST NOT use any
other mapping.
? I kind of hate this (and it's unenforcable anyway), but is it is
roughly what you're both aiming at?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list