Re: Re: idn-uri document

At 23:40 31/10/2002 +0100, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> > >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.

Hi,
I am surprised that you indicate that certain ASCII domains will be 
illegal. I can see why unix people may be unhappy about "*.example.org".
I trust that most high ASCII will be allowed - "é" (e-acute) for example 
since software such as BIND9 handles them.

I am also concerned that a group discussing a protocol is suggesting that 
the protocol is designed to "create pressure on registries". A protocol is 
a stand-alone technical facility, not an instrument of policy.

Regards

Steve Dyer
CentralNic Ltd