Re: Re: idn-uri document

> Ah, I see, of course the resolvers pass things through and then
> pass the negative result back, so they don't actually reject it.
> So now the sentence reads:
> 
> However, such syntax should never be used, and will never be
> resolved because no such domains will be registered.

ok


> >The defined syntax rules for declare certain ASCII domain names illegal
> >(such as *.example.org). Where is the check for illedgal names assumed to
> >be performed? For IDNA it probably makes sense to only apply this types
> >of checks (setting the UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag) when verifying domain name
> >registrations and not do such checks in the clients.
> 
> This is an IDNA question, not a idn-uri question. As far as I remember,
> the idea was to have the checks done on the clients, too (with some
> leeway for unassigned characters to stay forward-compatible with
> new character assignements). The reason for this was to create
> pressure on registries to follow the rules.

My point is that the idn-uri document is more restrictive in its
syntax than the IDNA document. I don't know if this is a good idea
or a bad idea, and we need to understand which type of idea it is.

> 

> >The above statement says that for all domain names (note that the term
> >"IDN" is defined to include the existing ASCII domain names)
> >one should apply nameprep. This might be fine but it makes sense
> >stating this explicitly. The ToASCII in IDNA does not apply nameprep
> >to all-ASCII labels.
> 
> The idea was simply to say: We RECOMMEND that you apply the IDNA rules
> already when you create an URI. What these rules are is up to IDNA.
> If IDNA says that their preparation of ascii-only labels is the
> identity operation, then we recommend that you apply that (i.e. do
> nothing), and not something else. If you see a way to make this clearer,
> please tell me.

It is the identity operation for ASCII-only labels (plus some checks
that will reject certain labels).

If you want to do that part, but not apply the Punycode step
then I think you need to explicitly state that one should
apply ToASCII without the punycode step (and other steps that don't
make sense if there are any).



> >Which are the "any steps required as part of domain name resolution"
> >above? I can't figure out to what it might refer.
> 
> That's the nameprep and related checking that the client has to
> do when it resolves a domain name. In IDNA terms, 'client' would
> be easy to understand. But using the word 'client' in an URI context
> doesn't work, so I tried to word around it. Any improved wording
> appreciated.

In that case I think refering to ToASCII would be best.

> >Finally, is the intent that nameprep always be applied before characters
> >are encoded in UTF-8? Then it makes sense stating that in the first real
> >paragraph on page 4.
> 
> No. In the context e.g. of IRIs, the conversion from an IRI to an URI
> would not do nameprep.

OK. Then it makes sense stating that explicitly somewhere.

  Erik