At 4:34 PM -0800 10/30/01, Yves Arrouye wrote: >I will be glad to understand that I am wrong in saying that this scenario >shows that some queries from older applications won't have the expected >result against more recent servers (older/recent as far as Stringprep goes). >But can you please point out where my reasoning is then?
"won't have the expected result" is quite different than "breaks". In your scenario, the application has no idea what the expected result is. The application simply knows that it is entering a character that is (according to the version of nameprep it is using) unassigned. Thus, a response of "no such name" makes perfect sense to the application. Remember, the client might be talking to a server that is using the same version of nameprep, and such a server will certainly generate "no such name" for any name that contains an unassigned character. There is no expectation that entering random unassigned characters will work. As you point out, those characters may be mapped or they may be prohibited in the version of nameprep that is running on the server. Further, even though the server might be running newer software, the character might still be unassigned. In short, a client has no particular "expected result" for a query with unassigned characters in it. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
