Re: [idn] hostname history hell

[Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>]

Excuse me for a second, but I might have missed what this discussion is
about.

The nameprep draft which was a result of the nameprep group did come up
with a list of excluded codepoints, and those are very delicately divided
into "Mapped out" (Section 3.1) and "Prohibited Output" (Section 5).

Is the intention to update / change these lists?

I.e. is this discussion a comment on the nameprep draft?

Basically, I feel we have already done this once, and need arguments for
starting all over again.

     paf


--On 01-11-21 08.35 -0800 Tim Langdell <tim@xtns.net> wrote:

> I think Eric's proposal may have legs. Or at least something along these
> lines. I agree with John's point that we need to start conservative and
> expand from that base-line. To be too inclusive at first means it would be
> nearly impossible to go back.
> 
> We must though be very careful not to inadvertently exclude
> scripts/characters that are used by some languages even though we thought
> they were merely symbols.
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>
> To: "John C Klensin" <klensin@jck.com>
> Cc: "James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>; "IDN" <idn@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 7:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [idn] hostname history hell
> 
> 
>> 
>> How about this as a believable compromise: We start with a "safe set" of
>> alphanumeric characters and specifically exclude punctuation, spacing,
>> symbols, and combining characters. Meanwhile, {some group} is going to
>> investigate the use of additional characters in the DNS and the allowable
>> set may be expanded at some point.
>> 
>> The obvious problem with this approach is that it will be difficult to
>> coordinate the two lists between the implementations.
>> 
>> --
>> Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
>> Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
>> 
>> 
> 
>