Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-07.txt
Dan <Dan.Oscarsson@trab.se> Sun, 24 June 2001 11:02 UTC
Received: from psg.com (exim@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA09530 for <idn-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 07:02:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 15E5ml-000ASr-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 02:02:27 -0700
Received: from malmo.trab.se ([131.115.48.10]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 15E5mj-000ASl-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 02:02:26 -0700
Received: from terra (terra.malmo.trab.se [131.115.48.22]) by malmo.trab.se (8.10.1/TRAB-primary-2) with SMTP id f5O90et26752 for <idn@ops.ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 11:00:40 +0200 (MEST)
Message-Id: <200106240900.f5O90et26752@malmo.trab.se>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 11:00:39 +0200
From: Dan <Dan.Oscarsson@trab.se>
Reply-To: Dan <Dan.Oscarsson@trab.se>
Subject: Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-07.txt
To: idn@ops.ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-MD5: 3AoQE79YJLelcnbZtttfGw==
X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.4.2 SunOS 5.8 sun4u sparc
Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
I have read through the latest version of the requirements and there are a few things I would like to discuss: How are we going to handle a draft like IDNA that does not change the DNS protocol and does not fulfill all protocol requirements? In [3] it is said that the protocol must not limit the code points that can be used. As IDNA does not change the protocol, it does not limit the protocol directely, but it does indirectely as some IDNA removes all upper case letters. And in [13] it says that the protocol must specify how characters are encoded in DNS records. This is not solved by IDNA - it only says how characters in names can be encoded. - Then there is one section about "canonicalisation". While not specified I assume "canonicalisation" is the process to change a character string into a format the allows it to be binary compared with an other string. In [19] it is said that cononicalisation must be done at a single well-defined place in the DNS resolution process. As canonicalisation may result in data being destroyed, it should be required that if canonicalisation is done at client end the canonicalisation process must not destroy data in a name. In [21] it is required that case insensitivity is reatined for ASCII, but not for the rest of UCS. In LDAP case insensitivity is a MUST, why is it not a MUST in DNS? Not requiring case insensitivity for all letters will result in many problems including confused users. As DNS has always been case insensitive it is not good to change that now. (Note: to force all names to be lower case is not to make it case insensitive). [23] - is this really needed. If canonicalisation is the process to make a string into a binary comparable string, it will always be done before or as part of the domain name resolution. Dan
- Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-07.txt Dan
- Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-07.txt Andrea Vine
- Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-07.txt Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
- Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-07.txt Dan
- Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-07.txt Florian Weimer
- Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-07.txt Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-07.txt Andrea Vine
- Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-07.txt Florian Weimer
- [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-07.txt Zita Wenzel