> At 9:56 AM -0800 2/1/02, Yves Arrouye wrote: > >The interesting scenario is: Server S is on Nameprep-08 (where a deletion > >mapping has been introduced for codepoint U+XXXXX), Client A is on > >Nameprep-07 but his OS supports Unicode 4.0 and its IME generates U+XXXXX. > >Client A will then pas U+XXXXX unchanged (since it was unassigned when > >Nameprep-07's tables were generated) and Server S won't find a match, > since > >its stored strings do not have U+XXXXX. > > That scenario will happen, and it is *supposed* to happen. It is > identical to if Nameprep-08 mapped U+XXXX to U+XYZX. The client must > not get a positive response to a query that includes characters that > are not allowed in the version on the authoritative server.
But they *are* allowed because the Server S uses Nameprep-08! > > Same for case mapping, if that were > >to happen. The user has no clue what is happening to her. > > Correct. It is identical to a user accidentally entering a Greek > capital Alpha instead of a Latin capital A. Or, even if we didn't do > IDN, the user accidentally enters numeral 0 instead of Latin capital > O. The DNS matching scheme will simply say "no match". In other > words, these failure scenarios are not a criticism of the versioning > method, they are a criticism of the simple matching in DNS. No this one is a specific critic of IDN breaking the existing DNS "matching must be case insensitive rule." If it is not must (MUST) then maybe it's not an issue. YA
