Re: U-labels and draft-obispo-epp-idn-00
Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:36:01AM +0100, Klaus Malorny wrote: > where is this stated, if I may ask? Can't find this in RFC 5730/5731 > or in the RFC 5891 which was mentioned in a later post. RFC 5731 says, "The syntax for domain and host names described in this document MUST conform to [RFC0952] and [RFC1123]." (See section 2.1.) 952, even as revised by 1123, is where the LDH rule comes from. This means that domain names in the EPP domain name mapping must conform to the LDH rules, which means that if they're IDNs they have to be A-labels. RFC 5891 is about how you handle the A-label and U-label when you get it at registration time. > Of course, it is arguable what kind of Unicode string is expected, The reason I was focussing on U-labels rather than any old Unicode string is in line with what others have said. If a registry gets a Unicode string in NFD, or gets a string with upper case characters, or a whole host of other possible mistakes under IDNA2008, I wouldn't expec that to be accepted. What goes in a slot intended for a U-label ought to be a real U-label. The only question is whether the U-label and the A-label match one another. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg