Re: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-idna-10.txt

["Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>]

on 6/28/2002 5:38 AM Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-idna-10.txt

 |  2. Perform the steps specified in [NAMEPREP] and fail if there is
 |     an error. The AllowUnassigned flag is used in [NAMEPREP].

"allowunassigned" does not appear in draft-ietf-idn-nameprep-11.txt

Is this the intended mechanism for allowing alternative profiles to be
encoded in IDNA? I see that section 1.1 says that nameprep is mandatory:

 | IDNA requires that implementations process input strings with
 | Nameprep [NAMEPREP], which is a profile of Stringprep [STRINGPREP],
 | and then with Punycode [PUNYCODE]. Implementations of IDNA MUST
 | fully implement Nameprep and Punycode; neither Nameprep nor Punycode
 | are optional.

Collectively this means that nameprep is still the gatekeeper, and that
profiles other than nameprep cannot be encoded with IDNA.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/