Re: Unicode and RFC 4690

From: Neil Harris (
Date: Thu Oct 05 2006 - 19:27:42 CST

  • Next message: Paul Johnston: ""Visually approximate" conversion from unicode to Windows-1252 [summary]"

    Philippe Verdy wrote:
    > From: "Neil Harris" <>
    >> UTR #36 and UTR #39 have a very detailed treatment of the all the issues
    >> involved.
    >> Notice that implementing these constraints on a per-label basis has no
    >> bearing at all on script-mixing between different labels in a FQDN,
    >> which is not a security problem, and that nothing in the above policy
    >> need stop labels from any of a number of different individual character
    >> sets from being issued in the same zone, providing care is taken to
    >> block or bundle possible collisions.
    >> Politics shouldn't be the issue here: individual domain operators and
    >> their users should all have a common interest in preventing homograph
    >> attacks, and these techniques can work effectively regardless of
    >> political issues.
    > One problem of this RFC is that the current format for the database of confusables supported as equivalents by a registry is NOT integrated in the DNS so that it can scale widely.
    > I would better expect a format that can be integrated completely as DNS records, possibly with a new DNS record type, simple to parse, and where each DNS server may cache reliably by a reference to a authoritative DNS server maintained by the registry (or the domain administrator if this is in a private domain).
    Having a reliable way of getting hold of the character set information
    for a given domain without needing to rely on a central registry would
    be very useful, regardless of whether or not your policy was archived

    -- Neil


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 05 2006 - 19:30:20 CST