[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [idn] stringprep comment 2




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Davis" 
To: "IETF idn working group" 
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: [idn] stringprep comment 2


> The comparison of loose vs loose should never be done, for the reasons
> you outline. That leaves
> 
> a) strict vs strict
> b) strict vs loose
> 
> (a) is always safe.
> 
> (b) works for situations like DNS, where there is a server on one side
> storing strict keys, and queries are made on the other and may be
> loose or strict. It would work for similar situations, such as email,
> if at one end there is a server that does validation (of, in this
> case, email names).
 
In  VCARD , P3P , MSN Passport or addressbook entry form, 
by what criteria can we decide  which nameprep  the input email addresses 
should go through :  strict nameprep or loose nameprep ?

The same question is valid for  the  senders' email addresses  
   in RFC822 "From:" header values and  in SMTP "MAIL FROM:"  header values   ,
  in instant web-based FORMMAIL submissions and
  in job applications forms.

In there any possibility that any IDN labels  which are intended as "queries" and ever injected into the internet
from one application , become permanent/persistant identifiers 
at other applications?  ACE labels carry  no such context during their trip through out thier life time 
in the interconnected applications.  How can we prevent  blind trusts or misuses of "queries"?

Soobok Lee