Re: [dnsext] URI RRTYPE review - Comments period end Aug 15th

[Masataka Ohta <[e-mail]>]

Patrik wrote:

> The URI/IRI is in the RDATA part, and the new draft allows both
> IRI and URI, and furthermore require that the URI/IRI can be
> mapped to each other back and forth.

That's a meaningless statement as the conversion is not well
defined at all.

Here are excerpts from RFC3987 how LRIs do not work:

            a. If the IRI is written on paper, read aloud, or otherwise
               represented as a sequence of characters independent of
               any character encoding, represent the IRI as a sequence
               of characters from the UCS normalized according to
               Normalization Form C (NFC, [UTR15]).

As I said, you can do nothing on LRIs on a paper with Kanji.

   The ToASCII operation may fail, but this would mean that the IRI
   cannot be resolved.

and LRIs do not require that it can be resolved.

   Note: Internationalized Domain Names may be contained in parts of an
      IRI other than the ireg-name part.  It is the responsibility of
      scheme-specific implementations (if the Internationalized Domain
      Name is part of the scheme syntax) or of server-side
      implementations (if the Internationalized Domain Name is part of
      'iquery') to apply the necessary conversions at the appropriate
      point.

and the localization conversion is scheme OR server specific.

   However, the IRI resulting
   from this conversion may not be exactly the same as the original IRI
   (if there ever was one).

thus, it is not back and forth.

Please never bother us with broken localization attempts of Unicode.

						Masataka Ohta