IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [idn] Which names are valid?

David Hopwood <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk> Fri, 10 August 2001 18:50 UTC

Received: from psg.com (exim@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09691 for <idn-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 14:50:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.31 #1) id 15VH7T-000FyG-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:34:51 -0700
Received: from irwell.zetnet.co.uk ([194.247.47.48] helo=zetnet.co.uk ident=root) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.31 #1) id 15VH7S-000Fy9-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:34:50 -0700
Received: from zetnet.co.uk (man-s109.dialup.zetnet.co.uk [194.247.41.236]) by zetnet.co.uk (8.11.3/8.11.3/Debian 8.11.2-1) with ESMTP id f7AIYhv14421; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 19:34:43 +0100
Message-ID: <3B742989.C3E562D7@zetnet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 19:35:53 +0100
From: David Hopwood <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en,fr-FR,fr,de-DE,de,ru
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, idn@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [idn] Which names are valid?
References: <3B67FE19.29536D40@zetnet.co.uk> <541958495.997365286@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id OAA09691

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> --On 1. august 2001 14:03 +0100 David Hopwood <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > What do you propose to call the query string used for a SRV lookup
> > (e.g. "_ldap._tcp.example.com"), if not a domain name? It is certainly
> > a domain name as defined and used in RFCs 1034, 1035 and 2181 (although
> > not a host name).
>
> with respect:
> draft-ietf-idn-requirements-08.txt has been in the group for a LONG time.

The definitions in that draft are not entirely satisfactory. For example,
consider "_ldap._tcp.π.com". This is clearly a domain name, and it is
clearly internationalized, so the most sensible thing to call it would be
an internationalized domain name. However, it is not a hostname (although
"π.com" is). It makes no sense to lose the useful distinction between
hostnames and domain names just because they are internationalized.

Note that the remit of this WG is to develop standards for internationalized
domain names, not just internationalized hostnames. Users will not be very
happy if lookups for SRV records below a non-ASCII domain don't work.

- -- 
David Hopwood <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>

Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/
RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5 0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01
Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a
public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been
seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBO3QKxzkCAxeYt5gVAQFP9wf/Qk5LwyDNWYWDz/2uYeRscIAHQhftBii6
o48A9wPIerUyDzOajiCxepEsX4oso3Hy7htj8k4QFNrQyga0BF4J/xGyRKqo4lwt
qOizKvDaCKjBUDvcsY6ThVTwqN75jNFyJvSSCFGmbDSWB6N4u0yqFL/4uKN6O8rZ
y+DqNn1rohtlchoXPGhcAKTucrp15xDbB9e8lBBAmHx6/J/Y7s6H+Ewx/fUyNy7L
fT7VF6g0XjWH6w0jdp7vIX/gtHzyjT5w9pUWp5cLWexqnmT4MsICXbhn5OSaEHm+
54sLzjpucfP8YGRa5XF0fm9agPXSsWk5n8B+15hAHo6FgKNl1rtk8w==
=ARLN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email