Hello Ronald, DB-WG, > On 6 Nov 2019, at 00:13, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> I have found at least one specific case where an IDN does appear >>> in the data base as a UTF-8 encoded string, but since I had >>> never seen that before, I just wanted to know if that was an >>> anomalous mistake or if it was consider normal, acceptable, >>> and routine. > > Mea culpa! I misspoke. >
Thanks for clarifying! > What I found was *not* an internationalized domain name, per se. Well, > maybe it was/is and maybe it wasn't/isn't. I'll let you all decide, > and then you can tell me if I have used improper terminology to > descrtbe what I found. > The email address you found, is the only IDN (i.e. non-ASCII) email address in the RIPE database (so far). It's currently considered a valid value in the RIPE database, as it's composed of Latin-1 characters, and the attribute syntax check passes. There is also an MX record for the domain (although the host dc-eb0309b6496a.xn--zrich-kva.email is currently unreachable for me). However, it may cause inter-operability issues, as the sending mail server needs to handle IDN addresses correctly. DB-WG: should we allow non-ASCII addresses in the RIPE database? > P.S. Not that anybody should really care, but for this one lone resarcher > it would be maximally convenient if all domain names represented within the > data base were encoded as punycode, where necessary. In fact, it is my > belief that 99.99% of them already are, which thus renders the "transition" > to that standard essentially pain free. > DB-WG: is punycode for domain names a viable alternative for encoding non-ASCII email addresses? For example, the punycode equivalent [email protected] is already a valid value for the e-mail (or abuse-c) attribute. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC
