[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Simple] Re: [Geopriv] Domain identifier in common policy
Given Jonathan's comment, I thought he was more focused on actual
domain names and not IP addresses. I don't care. I just thought that
was what was said.
Right; I just want to make sure we don't get into an IPv4 vs. IPv6
discussion.
Even if the domain field is limited to ireg-name, I do not believe that
solves the problem. I'm not an IRI expert, but it appears that not all
ireg-name values are legal domain names.
Sure, but this is not a new problem. example.andy, ccs.columbia.edu or
ex$ample.com are not valid domain names, either, even without the I18N
problems. Thus, there will always be valid domain-looking strings that
don't match any protocol-possible string. This isn't an issue - the rule
component just will never match and somebody will have to fix the typo.
And I still wonder about the IDN case, especially given that this
appears to be an exact match. Which form is the exact match performed
on, the UTF8, a NamePrepped domain, or an ACE encoded domain. Given
that there can be variants of an IDN floating around on the wire, it
always seems to me that the comparison should be done on the ACE version.
I may be looking at the wrong thing, but Section 5 of RFC 3987 seems
relevant:
5. Normalization and Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1. Equivalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2. Preparation for Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.3. Comparison Ladder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.3.1. Simple String Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.3.2. Syntax-Based Normalization . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3.3. Scheme-Based Normalization . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.3.4. Protocol-Based Normalization . . . . . . . . . . 28
If there is somebody with better IDN-in-IRI clue, please correct me.
-andy
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple