Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-idna-10.txt
"Eric A. Hall" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.idn |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
on 6/28/2002 5:38 AM [email protected] wrote: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-idna-10.txt | 2. Perform the steps specified in [NAMEPREP] and fail if there is | an error. The AllowUnassigned flag is used in [NAMEPREP]. "allowunassigned" does not appear in draft-ietf-idn-nameprep-11.txt Is this the intended mechanism for allowing alternative profiles to be encoded in IDNA? I see that section 1.1 says that nameprep is mandatory: | IDNA requires that implementations process input strings with | Nameprep [NAMEPREP], which is a profile of Stringprep [STRINGPREP], | and then with Punycode [PUNYCODE]. Implementations of IDNA MUST | fully implement Nameprep and Punycode; neither Nameprep nor Punycode | are optional. Collectively this means that nameprep is still the gatekeeper, and that profiles other than nameprep cannot be encoded with IDNA. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/