Re: Thread on - Re: [idn] Prohibit CDN code points

[=?utf-8?B?dHNlbmdsbUDoqIjntrLkuK3lv4Mu5Lit5aSnLnR3?= <tsenglm@cc.ncu.edu.tw>]

Dear All:
In the draft ,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-idna-06.txt
define the single Unicode code point as follow:

Unicode [UNICODE] is a coded character set containing tens of thousands
of characters. A single Unicode code point is denoted by "U+" followed
by four to six hexadecimal digits, while a range of Unicode code points
is denoted by two hexadecimal numbers separated by "..", with no
prefixes.

My question are:
Q1:   U+hhhh  can be represented as u+hhhh  or not ?
Q2:   Here U+HHHH  is not a hostname , does it MUST be forced to lower
u+hhhh or not  in nameprep ?
Q3:  Puny code  draft  accept  U+hhhh  or  u+hhhh  to let the final encoded
ASCII character (last character of corresponding  encoded code point)  with
case upper or lower.

I   hope draft authors can help to clarify these interconnection point .

L.M.Tseng
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
To: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 9:20 PM
Subject: Thread on - Re: [idn] Prohibit CDN code points


> Dear all,
>
> I was offline for 2 days and just finished reading 60+ message on this
> thread alone.
>
> While it is very interesting, I would like to remind everyone that in
> order to make working group progress, we should focus our discussion on
> "core interest".
>
> The "core interest" of the group after SLC:
>
> Requirements of Internationalized Domain Names
> (draft-ietf-idn-requirements)
> Internationalizing Host Names In Applications (IDNA)
> (draft-ietf-idn-idna)
> Preparation of Internationalized Host Names (draft-ietf-idn-nameprep)
> Proposal for a determining process of ACE identifier
> (draft-ietf-idn-aceid)
> AMC-ACE-Z version 0.2.1(draft-costello-idn-amc-ace-z) renamed as
>     Punycode version 0.3.3 (draft-ietf-idn-punycode-00)
>
> Therefore, it would be better if we bring all discussion outside core
> interest offline. We should focus on our current action item, namely:
>
> 1. Decision on Requirements Document
>
>    Since there is no further feedback on the issues of dropping the
>    requirements, then we should drop it from the pool.
>
>    There is also no volunteer for the replacement doc so we will put
>    the idea on hold until we find one.
>
> 2. WG Last Call for IDNA, Nameprep, AMC-ACE-Z (aka punycode)
>
>    We should be doing it anytime now, hopefully within this week.
>
> -James Seng
>
>