Skip to main content

Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA): Protocol
RFC 5891

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
18 (System) Notify list changed from idnabis-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
18 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk
2010-08-04
18 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2010-08-04
18 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5891' added by Cindy Morgan
2010-08-04
18 (System) RFC published
2010-01-12
18 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2010-01-11
18 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2010-01-11
18 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2010-01-11
18 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2010-01-11
18 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2010-01-11
18 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2010-01-08
18 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-01-07
2010-01-07
18 Cindy Morgan State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2010-01-07
18 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-18.txt
2010-01-07
18 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Tim Polk
2010-01-07
18 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Tim Polk
2010-01-07
18 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2010-01-07
18 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
Here's a suggestion from a review by Christian Vogt:

- Section 3.1, third bullet, refers to label requirements in sections 4
  and …
[Ballot comment]
Here's a suggestion from a review by Christian Vogt:

- Section 3.1, third bullet, refers to label requirements in sections 4
  and 5.  Suggest making this more specific and refer to sections 4.2
  and 5.4, respectively.  Sections 4 and 5 specify protocols, and the
  label requirements are only part of this.
2010-01-07
18 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2010-01-07
18 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2010-01-07
18 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2010-01-07
18 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2010-01-06
18 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Jari Arkko
2010-01-06
18 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2010-01-06
18 Tim Polk [Ballot comment]
Section 4.2.1 makes no statement regarding the input format U-label only.  Perhaps all
appropriate actions are described in 4.2.2 through 4.5?
2010-01-06
18 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
From section 4.2.1:

  If only an A-label was provided and the conversion to a U-label is
  not performed, the registry MUST …
[Ballot discuss]
From section 4.2.1:

  If only an A-label was provided and the conversion to a U-label is
  not performed, the registry MUST still verify that the A-label is
  superficially valid, i.e., that it does not violate any of the rules
  of Punycode [RFC3492] encoding such as the prohibition on trailing
  hyphen-minus, appearance of non-basic characters before the
  delimiter, and so on.

From my reading, it appears that the remainder of section 4 (excepting 4.5) does not
apply if the registry chooses not to perform the conversion to a U-label.  Is that
correct?  If so, it should probably be stated explicitly.
2010-01-06
18 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2010-01-05
18 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2010-01-05
18 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2010-01-04
18 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2010-01-02
18 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2009-12-31
18 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Jeffrey Hutzelman.
2009-12-27
18 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
[I might have more comments later, sending the first batch now.]

3.1.  Requirements

  2.  Labels MUST be compared using equivalent forms: either …
[Ballot comment]
[I might have more comments later, sending the first batch now.]

3.1.  Requirements

  2.  Labels MUST be compared using equivalent forms: either both
      A-Label forms or both U-Label forms.  Because A-labels and
      U-labels can be transformed into each other without loss of
      information, these comparisons are equivalent.  A pair of
      A-labels MUST be compared as case-insensitive ASCII (as with all
      comparisons of ASCII DNS labels).  U-labels must be compared

s/must/MUST ?

      as-is, without case-folding or other intermediate steps.

4.2.3.3.  Contextual Rules

  The Unicode string MUST NOT contain any characters whose validity is
  context-dependent, unless the validity is positively confirmed by a
  contextual rule.  To check this, each code-point marked as CONTEXTJ
  and CONTEXTO in [IDNA2008-Tables] MUST have a non-null rule.  If such
  a code-point is missing a rule, it is invalid.  If the rule exists
  but the result of applying the rule is negative or inconclusive, the
  proposed label is invalid.

Can you give an example of inconclusive result of a contextual rule?

5.2.  Conversion to Unicode

  The string is converted from the local character set into Unicode, if
  it is not already in Unicode.  Depending on local needs, this
  conversion may involve mapping some characters into other characters
  as well as coding conversions.

Does mapping only talks about conversion from a character set to Unicode,
or also about Unicode character mapping? If the latter, the section
title is slightly wrong and the description above might not be precise enough.

  Those issues are discussed in
  [IDNA2008-Mapping] and the mapping-related sections (Sections 4.4, 6,
  and 7.3) of [IDNA2008-Rationale].  The result MUST be a Unicode
  string in NFC form.


10.1.  Normative References

  [Unicode-RegEx]
              The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Technical Standard #18:
              Unicode Regular Expressions", May 2005,
              .

  [Unicode-Scripts]
              The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Standard Annex #24:
              Unicode Script Property", February 2008,
              .

These references don't seem to be used.


10.2.  Informative References

  [RFC2136]  Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,
              "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",
              RFC 2136, April 1997.

This is also not referenced.
2009-12-27
18 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2009-12-20
18 Lisa Dusseault Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-01-07 by Lisa Dusseault
2009-12-20
18 Lisa Dusseault State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Lisa Dusseault
2009-12-20
18 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lisa Dusseault
2009-12-20
18 Lisa Dusseault Ballot has been issued by Lisa Dusseault
2009-12-20
18 Lisa Dusseault Created "Approve" ballot
2009-10-26
17 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-17.txt
2009-10-15
18 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2009-10-07
18 Amanda Baber IANA comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this
document to have no IANA Actions.
2009-10-03
18 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman
2009-10-03
18 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman
2009-10-01
18 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2009-10-01
18 Cindy Morgan State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan
2009-10-01
18 Lisa Dusseault Last Call was requested by Lisa Dusseault
2009-10-01
18 Lisa Dusseault State Changes to Last Call Requested from In Last Call by Lisa Dusseault
2009-10-01
18 Lisa Dusseault Last Call was requested by Lisa Dusseault
2009-10-01
18 Lisa Dusseault Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from Draft Standard
2009-09-29
18 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2009-09-28
18 Lisa Dusseault Last Call was requested by Lisa Dusseault
2009-09-28
18 Lisa Dusseault State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Lisa Dusseault
2009-09-28
18 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-09-28
18 (System) Last call text was added
2009-09-28
18 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-09-28
18 Lisa Dusseault See idnabis-defs for the writeup
2009-09-28
18 Lisa Dusseault Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-klensin-idnabis-protocol.
2009-09-14
16 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-16.txt
2009-09-01
15 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-15.txt
2009-08-10
14 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-14.txt
2009-07-13
13 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-13.txt
2009-05-08
12 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-12.txt
2009-03-09
11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-11.txt
2009-03-06
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-10.txt
2009-02-21
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-09.txt
2008-12-08
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-08.txt
2008-12-01
18 (System) Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-klensin-idnabis-protocol.
2008-12-01
18 (System) Draft Added by the IESG Secretary in state 0.  by system
2008-11-28
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-07.txt
2008-11-02
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-06.txt
2008-09-26
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-05.txt
2008-09-12
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-04.txt
2008-07-28
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-03.txt
2008-07-14
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-02.txt
2008-05-27
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-01.txt
2008-05-22
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-00.txt