8 Nov 2010 17:29
Re: IDNA 2008 Question Re: "Confusable" Characters in Domain Names
Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams <at> oracle.com>
2010-11-08 16:29:52 GMT
2010-11-08 16:29:52 GMT
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 05:35:21AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 10:58:30PM +0000, Shawn Steele wrote: > > But the "zones" are DNS, and they define the rules for their zones. > > There's no way any browser can tell what rules a particular zone is > > using. > > I think you're not making a distinction you may need. > > Anyone looking up anything in the DNS can tell what rules everyone > else is using: they're using RFC 1034 and RFC1035 and a larger or > smaller set of subsequent RFCs that refine the way the DNS is used. > Nothing in IDNA, or for that matter the policies encoded in RFC 1123 > or in ICANN's various agreements or in the CIRA .ca (or pick your > favourite ccTLD) or the .name registration agreement or the rules > about blogspot.com names or whatever else you like constrains any of > that. Moreover, if you want to set up shawnsteele.example.com and put > ISO-8859-1 labels in the next level down, _that's also_ perfetly > legitimate in the DNS, and will "work" in the sense that someone else > who knows what kind of bitstring you have in that 8859-1 label will be > able to interpret it. +1 > The distinction you need is that there is no way, in the DNS or, > currently as far as I know, outside of it, to look up the policies for > what code points would be acceptable U-label pieces in a U-label in > that zone. It might be the case that having such a mechanism would be > good. But we don't have it right now. If we think making such a > mechanism (or even just defining conventions for how to publish that > policy) is important, then people should speak up. The last couple > times I proposed it, the reaction seemed to me that it wasn't > important. So I never bothered to write it up. I think such a mechanism would be an unfortunate complication for DNS clients -- not only would it add round trips to lookups, it'd also mean that clients would have implement more codeset conversions/encodings. I'd rather we avoid it as much as possible. ISTM that the best way to avoid it is to get IDNA2008 deployed. Nico -- --
RSS Feed