Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-idna-08.txt
"Adam M. Costello" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.idn |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
[email protected] wrote: > The alphabetic characters in this context are 0x41-0x5a and 0x61-0x7a > (zero parity ASCII A-Z, a-z). All others are compared exactly. That may be what the popular DNS implementations do, but I don't see RFC 1035 saying how to compare 0x80-0xFF. "Eric A. Hall" <[email protected]> wrote: > You are the only one that is unclear on it. 0x80-0xFF must match > exactly. I'm not the only one. Here's an excerpt from a message by John Klensin: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg15742.html RFC1035> For all parts of the DNS that are part of the official RFC1035> protocol, all comparisons between character strings (e.g., RFC1035> labels, domain names, etc.) are done in a case-insensitive RFC1035> manner. At present, this rule is in force throughout the RFC1035> domain system without exception. John Klensin> To emphasize, that is "all parts" and "all comparisons", John Klensin> not "unless you happen to find the high bit turned on". John Klensin> An existing and conforming implementation has no way to do John Klensin> those required case-insensitive comparisons outside the John Klensin> ASCII range. Robert Elz> No, nor is it required to. John Klensin> There we probably disagree -- I suggest that the text is John Klensin> at least ambiguous and might require it. AMC