In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "E.B. Dreger" writes: > >EL> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 13:44:53 -0500 >EL> From: Edward Lewis > > >EL> The DNS protocol is not 8-bit safe, much less any >EL> implementations of it. This is because ASCII upper case >EL> characters are down cased in comparisons. I.e., the > >My point is there's no need to force chars <= 0x7f if DNS servers >are properly implemented. If they're not properly implemented, >why not, and whose fault is that? Catering to bad or broken >implementations instead of following standards is not a good way >to ensure interoperability. > >DNS labels are encoded by a one-octet length representation >followed by that number of octets, with no restrictions on the >content of the octets. Show me where an RFC says something to >the extent of "labels and <any type of> RR MUST NOT contain >characters >= 0x7f" that rescinds 1035. > >Yes, comparisons are case-insensitive. So what? strcasecmp() >works on ASCII strings. Now it must work on <new encoding x>. >Why not let <new encoding x> be UTF-8, something programmers >should support already? Maybe MS-style Unicode encoding? Why >add yet another encoding?! >
I'm sorry, but this is incorrect in many different dimensions. The subject was discussed exhaustively in the IETF's IDN working group; I refer you to its archive for detailed discussions. Among many other things, your assertion about the simplicity of name comparisons is wrong; see draft-hoffman-stringprep-07.txt for a discussion of that issue. As for 8-bit clean DNS -- well, apart from the many possible ways to encode things, there's the issue of the many applications that aren't 8-bit clean, including (per the RFC 822 spec) SMTP. If "just use 8-bit clean DNS" were sufficient, we'd have been there several years ago. See http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/idn-charter.html for many more pointers. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)