At 1:02 PM -0800 2/1/02, Yves Arrouye wrote: > > At 9:56 AM -0800 2/1/02, Yves Arrouye wrote: >> >The interesting scenario is: Server S is on Nameprep-08 (where a deletion >> >mapping has been introduced for codepoint U+XXXXX), Client A is on >> >Nameprep-07 but his OS supports Unicode 4.0 and its IME generates >U+XXXXX. >> >Client A will then pas U+XXXXX unchanged (since it was unassigned when >> >Nameprep-07's tables were generated) and Server S won't find a match, >> since >> >its stored strings do not have U+XXXXX. >> >> That scenario will happen, and it is *supposed* to happen. It is >> identical to if Nameprep-08 mapped U+XXXX to U+XYZX. The client must >> not get a positive response to a query that includes characters that >> are not allowed in the version on the authoritative server. > >But they *are* allowed because the Server S uses Nameprep-08!
I'm misunderstanding your scenario then. You said in nameprep-08, character U+XXXX has a "deleting mapping". I understood that as "character U+XXXX is now assigned but is prohibited". If that's not what you meant, please help me. >No this one is a specific critic of IDN breaking the existing DNS "matching >must be case insensitive rule." If it is not must (MUST) then maybe it's not >an issue. There is no such rule: there is a strong attempt. The Turkish dotless I is an example of where the attempt will inherently fail in one case or the other. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
