> Ah, I see, of course the resolvers pass things through and then > pass the negative result back, so they don't actually reject it. > So now the sentence reads: > > However, such syntax should never be used, and will never be > resolved because no such domains will be registered.
ok > >The defined syntax rules for declare certain ASCII domain names illegal > >(such as *.example.org). Where is the check for illedgal names assumed to > >be performed? For IDNA it probably makes sense to only apply this types > >of checks (setting the UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag) when verifying domain name > >registrations and not do such checks in the clients. > > This is an IDNA question, not a idn-uri question. As far as I remember, > the idea was to have the checks done on the clients, too (with some > leeway for unassigned characters to stay forward-compatible with > new character assignements). The reason for this was to create > pressure on registries to follow the rules. My point is that the idn-uri document is more restrictive in its syntax than the IDNA document. I don't know if this is a good idea or a bad idea, and we need to understand which type of idea it is. > > >The above statement says that for all domain names (note that the term > >"IDN" is defined to include the existing ASCII domain names) > >one should apply nameprep. This might be fine but it makes sense > >stating this explicitly. The ToASCII in IDNA does not apply nameprep > >to all-ASCII labels. > > The idea was simply to say: We RECOMMEND that you apply the IDNA rules > already when you create an URI. What these rules are is up to IDNA. > If IDNA says that their preparation of ascii-only labels is the > identity operation, then we recommend that you apply that (i.e. do > nothing), and not something else. If you see a way to make this clearer, > please tell me. It is the identity operation for ASCII-only labels (plus some checks that will reject certain labels). If you want to do that part, but not apply the Punycode step then I think you need to explicitly state that one should apply ToASCII without the punycode step (and other steps that don't make sense if there are any). > >Which are the "any steps required as part of domain name resolution" > >above? I can't figure out to what it might refer. > > That's the nameprep and related checking that the client has to > do when it resolves a domain name. In IDNA terms, 'client' would > be easy to understand. But using the word 'client' in an URI context > doesn't work, so I tried to word around it. Any improved wording > appreciated. In that case I think refering to ToASCII would be best. > >Finally, is the intent that nameprep always be applied before characters > >are encoded in UTF-8? Then it makes sense stating that in the first real > >paragraph on page 4. > > No. In the context e.g. of IRIs, the conversion from an IRI to an URI > would not do nameprep. OK. Then it makes sense stating that explicitly somewhere. Erik
