Subject: RE: draft-santesson-tls-ume Last Call comment

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:01:01 -0400

On Sunday, March 26, 2006 02:48:17 PM -0800 "Kurt D. Zeilenga" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I note that SASLprep is case-insensitive and hence may not
> be appropriate for the user portion of a UPN.

I think this is a type.  SASLprep is case-preserving, and hence may
not be appropriate for the user portion of a UPN, if the latter are
intended to be case-insensitive.

> I also think it
> odd to allow both toUnicode and toASCII domain component
> forms on the wire.

So do I.

> (I recommend the latter).

Why?  The toASCII form was designed to allow IDN's to be encoded for use in 
protocol fields which are very restrictive about what octet strings they 
can carry; in particular, label fields in the DNS wire protocol.  Why do I 
keep seeing people who insist on using that inefficient encoding in 
protocol slots which are perfectly capable of carrying UTF-8?  That's very 
much like suggesting the use of base-32 encoding in an 8-bit-clean field.

Use of toASCII is appropriate for _existing_ IDN-unaware uses of domain 
names.  I wish someone would explain to me why so many people want to use 
it for IDN-aware uses in new protocols.

-- Jeff

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf