Re: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-idna-08.txt

[Mark.Andrews@isc.org]

> "Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com> wrote:
> 
> > > As far as I know, no use for the 8th bit has ever been standardized.
> >
> > The standardized usage is local interpretation.  Any usage is
> > compliant.
> 
> I'll agree that any usage is compliant, but by definition "local
> interpretation" is not "standardized".  By the way, using the 8th bit is
> risky, because the DNS spec is very unclear (if not downright silent)
> about how DNS servers compare octets with the 8th bit set.

	I don't know what's "unclear" or "silent" about the following
	from RFC 1035.

Although labels can contain any 8 bit values in octets that make up a
label, it is strongly recommended that labels follow the preferred
syntax described elsewhere in this memo, which is compatible with
existing host naming conventions.  Name servers and resolvers must
compare labels in a case-insensitive manner (i.e., A=a), assuming ASCII
with zero parity.  Non-alphabetic codes must match exactly.

> 
> > > IDNA effectively says that the 8th bit is not to be used for
> > > internationalization, at least not for the time being.  It's still
> > > available for other purposes (like non-textual domain names).
> >
> > These can still be supported, but they can't be run through the
> > converter.
> 
> Right.  IDNA requirements do not apply to non-text labels, because:
> 
>     Throughout this document the term "label" is shorthand for "text
>     label", and "every label" means "every text label".
> 
> (Section 2.)
> 
> AMC
> 
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews@isc.org