Re: draft-kong-epp-cdn-dnssec-mapping-00 Submitted for Review
Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 01:04:47PM +0200, Jens Wagner wrote: > for now, the extension needs to cover IDNA2003 too, imho we can't > stick to IDNA2008 in the forseeable future. > But - do we need the unicode labels at all? The set of 'usable' > domain names always matches the set of them encoded in punycode. It's of course true that the IDNA2003 Punycode-encoded label, or the IDNA2008 A-label, is the only thing that actually gets looked up. But given that people seem to want variants, those variants are based on the string requested by the originator of the registration request (we usually call this the registrant). But what qualifies as a variant is at least partly determined by registry policy, the registry will need to be able to evaluate the extent to which a UTF-8 label (in IDNA2003) or U-label (in IDNA2008) has variants. Moreover, IDNA2008 suggests that the repository evaluate the U-label/A-label pair for conformance with one another, in order to ensure that the A-label to be placed in the zone really corresponds to the desired U-label (and that that U-label is a real U-label). See section 4.2.1 of RFC 5891. > The only purpose of the extension would be, that a registry can list > all manageble domains derived from an original domain, right? Sure, but under IDNA2003, you can't be sure what that "original domain" is, because of the case folding and so on. A -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg