RE: [idn] stringprep comment 1

[Yves Arrouye <yves@realnames.com>]

> 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