Re: Re: idn-uri document

Hello Steve,

In an URI, *.example.org (e.g. http://*.example.org) is very
clearly illegal.

Also, I don't think it's a bad idea that a group that decides on the
syntax of a new protocol element give some thoughts about where the
rules should be checked, and where not, in order to assure consistent
deployment. The restrictions on domain names given by IDNA/nameprep/
stringprep are not in any sense policy issues, they are very clearly
technical issues.

Regards,    Martin.

At 09:40 02/11/01 +0000, Steve Dyer wrote:
>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 - " (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
>
>