Re: Document Status?
"James Seng" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.idn |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <003901c25b91$08a43540$4d00a8c0@JAMESSONYVAIO> |
> > 1. registry vs Nameprep > > > > I have already answered you the Nameprep is okay. You have not make a case > > registry mapping is going to be a problem. > > I and others already listed the case in this list. > the mapping won't be reflected in protocols and application comparisons > unlike that caseinsensitive matching of ASCII names. I did not hear other but I certainly hear you. And I responsed to you why your "mapping" problem isnt a problem. You have not stated why my reasoning is wrong or otherwise. > > > > 2. "ambiguity" of Nameprep/IDNA > > > > You have only stated your opinion it is ambigous. You have absolute right to > > do so. > > But you have not stated any technical reasons why. > > You keep on insisting that IDN introduces no new security problem than that of > '0' and 'o' in ASCII names. Did I insist that IDN introduce no new security? I think you hear it in your dreams. I suggest you read the new security consideration in the existing drafts (Stringprep particularly). > But that is not correct. IDN introduce the problem > of look-exactly-identical chars. That was not in ASCII names. And your proposal draft is...? -James Seng