> "Eric A. Hall" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > As far as I know, no use for the 8th bit has ever been standardized.
> >
> > The standardized usage is local interpretation. Any usage is
> > compliant.
>
> I'll agree that any usage is compliant, but by definition "local
> interpretation" is not "standardized". By the way, using the 8th bit is
> risky, because the DNS spec is very unclear (if not downright silent)
> about how DNS servers compare octets with the 8th bit set.
I don't know what's "unclear" or "silent" about the following
from RFC 1035.
Although labels can contain any 8 bit values in octets that make up a
label, it is strongly recommended that labels follow the preferred
syntax described elsewhere in this memo, which is compatible with
existing host naming conventions. Name servers and resolvers must
compare labels in a case-insensitive manner (i.e., A=a), assuming ASCII
with zero parity. Non-alphabetic codes must match exactly.
>
> > > IDNA effectively says that the 8th bit is not to be used for
> > > internationalization, at least not for the time being. It's still
> > > available for other purposes (like non-textual domain names).
> >
> > These can still be supported, but they can't be run through the
> > converter.
>
> Right. IDNA requirements do not apply to non-text labels, because:
>
> Throughout this document the term "label" is shorthand for "text
> label", and "every label" means "every text label".
>
> (Section 2.)
>
> AMC
>
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected]
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.