On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 12:08 AM, <shath...@e-z.net> wrote: >> ... > Even today with Unicode character set families, the ability to provide > a global case-independent mapping becomes a massive problem. There are > a variety of latin-like alphabets and greek alphabets, and even > IBM EBCDIC encodings that are much unlike the US-ASCII character set. > Even more problematic are the cyrillic, hebrew, aramaic, asian, and > african alphabets. Do we need to accept transliteration to these > various alphabetic schems? > > Traditionally, case-independence has been the conversion of US-ASCII > and IBM EBCDIC encodings for named strings. In documentation languages, > the use of various Unicode tablular character sets are used. > > How much of this above work needs to be accomplished so that > name case-independent and character code table independence needs > to be accomplished. Or should we just define a character encoding > standard for the naming conventions and stick to the definitions? I believe they are discussing strings like used in cipher suites (for example, "RC4-MD5"). They are 8-bit clean.
For the upcoming hostname matching gear, IDNs must be A-label form from RFC 6125, section 6.4.2. Jeff ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
