In message <of239d6e1e.8748c878-on80257650.004a25fe-80257650.004b6...@nominet.o
rg.uk>, [email protected] writes:
> > comments are welcome. thanks.
>
> There are, in my opinion, two problems with the DNAME method that affect
> the application layer that are rarely mentioned. Perhaps this is because
> I am wrong about them and they are not real problems, so feedback would be
> useful.
>
> 1. "Host:" headers
>
> If a registry (or other parent zone) unilaterally adds DNAME records that
> alias a new IDN label to a current ccTLD style ASCII label, application
> servers which are only configured to accept requests for the ASCII form of
> the label will reject requests made using the IDN form.
>
> i.e. if your Apache server is configured with:
>
> ServerName www.cnnic.cn
>
> it will reject requests for www.cnnic.$BCf9q(B unless the appropriate
> ServerAlias is also configured.
So what? And for www.cnnic.xn--xxxxx. Once the DNAME is
in place operators will put the alias in place.
> 2. SSL Subject Names
>
> Similarly an SSL request for the IDN version of a domain name will fail
> unless the SSL certificate also includes a "Subject Alternate Name" for
> the IDN version.
>
> Whilst the same problems can also occur with the NS method, I believe that
> the risk for confusion is much reduced if the creation of each IDN label
> is controlled by the domain owner, and not done automatically by the
> parent.
>
> The domain owner can then make the choice for themselves whether to
> support both IDNs and ASCII labels, and configure their web servers etc
> appropriately.
Again, so what?
Mark
> kind regards,
>
> Ray
>
> --
> Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) MIET
> Senior Researcher in Advanced Projects, Nominet
> e: [email protected], t: +44 1865 332211
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
