Re: U-labels and draft-obispo-epp-idn-00

On 15/02/12 17:56, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 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.
>

Ok, accepted, thanks. I should better re-read RFC 5730 et seqq. to see whether 
it still contains more backward-looking rules that have been overcome elsewhere ;-)

> 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 focusing 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
> expect 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
>

So you suggest that upper case domain names should be better rejected, 
consequentially? And for both non-IDNs and IDN A-labels? While it makes life 
easier for the registries, I have the feeling that a few registrars would get 
some trouble with this.

Regards,

Klaus
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg