Hi, Please note that this is not about the document that started this thread. It's a rathole, but in a different field.
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 04:58:01PM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Please, no. As the originator of the original > <letter><letter><hyphen><hyphen> hack, I think this is the wrong thing to do > for many reasons. The biggest one is, sadly, the fact that some software now > has <letter><letter><hyphen><hyphen> as reserved even though it should not. I am not convince that "it should not" is true, and having thought about this a little more it seems to me that an IANA registry should have been created in the first place for this sort of miserable in-label hack. If it had been, we could have done something useful here. And if we don't do so now, in short order we're going to be into the multi-level underscore-label hell that underscore labels are. RFC 5891 explicitly says that any IDNA-handling software can't accept a string with two hyphens in the third and fourth character positions (that is, in a crappy regex, can't take ^..\-\-.*) as a candidate Unicode string to be a label (see 4.2.3.1). This causes upset in section 5.4 of the same document, which is I suspect how Paul's "sad" software came to be. It seems plain therefore that a registry of in-band in-label prefixes ought to be created, so that instead of heuristics in IDNA2008 we could tell people to use a real rule. Before I go to the bother of writing this up, are there at least five people who would review it, noting that it must update RFC 5891 to be useful? Thanks, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
