[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-klensin-idnabis-protocol) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 RFC 5891

Network Working Group                                         J. Klensin
Internet-Draft                                             March 5, 2009
Obsoletes: 3490, 3491
(if approved)
Updates: 3492 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: September 6, 2009


    Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA): Protocol
                  draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-10.txt

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.  This document may contain material
   from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
   available before November 10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the
   copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
   Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
   IETF Standards Process.  Without obtaining an adequate license from
   the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
   document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
   derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
   Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
   translate it into languages other than English.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the



Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

Abstract

   This document supplies the protocol definition for a revised and
   updated specification for internationalized domain names (IDNs).  The
   rationale for these changes, the relationship to the older
   specification, and important terminology are provided in other
   documents.  This document specifies the protocol mechanism, called
   Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA), for
   registering and looking up IDNs in a way that does not require
   changes to the DNS itself.  IDNA is only meant for processing domain
   names, not free text.
































Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.1.  Discussion Forum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Requirements and Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  Applicability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.2.1.  DNS Resource Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.2.2.  Non-domain-name Data Types Stored in the DNS . . . . .  7
   4.  Registration Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  Input to IDNA Registration Process . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.2.  Permitted Character and Label Validation . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.2.1.  Input Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.2.2.  Rejection of Characters that are not Permitted . . . .  9
       4.2.3.  Label Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.2.4.  Registration Validation Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.3.  Registry Restrictions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.4.  Punycode Conversion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.5.  Insertion in the Zone  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.  Domain Name Lookup Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.1.  Label String Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.2.  Conversion to Unicode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.3.  Character Changes in Preprocessing or the User
           Interface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.4.  A-label Input  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.5.  Validation and Character List Testing  . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.6.  Punycode Conversion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.7.  DNS Name Resolution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   8.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   9.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   Appendix A.  Local Mapping Alternatives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     A.1.  Transitional Mapping Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     A.2.  Internationalized Resource Identifier (IRI) Mapping
           Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   Appendix B.  Summary of Major Changes from IDNA2003  . . . . . . . 21
   Appendix C.  Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     C.1.  Changes between Version -00 and -01 of
           draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     C.2.  Version -02  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     C.3.  Version -03  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     C.4.  Version -04  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     C.5.  Version -05  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23



Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


     C.6.  Version -06  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     C.7.  Version -07  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     C.8.  Version -08  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     C.9.  Version -09  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     C.10. Version -10  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24













































Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


1.  Introduction

   This document supplies the protocol definition for a revised and
   updated specification for internationalized domain names.  Essential
   definitions and terminology for understanding this document and a
   road map of the collection of documents that make up IDNA2008 appear
   in [IDNA2008-Defs].  Appendix B discusses the relationship between
   this specification and the earlier version of IDNA (referred to here
   as "IDNA2003") and the rationale for these changes, along with
   considerable explanatory material and advice to zone administrators
   who support IDNs is provided in another documents, notably
   [IDNA2008-Rationale].

   IDNA works by allowing applications to use certain ASCII string
   labels (beginning with a special prefix) to represent non-ASCII name
   labels.  Lower-layer protocols need not be aware of this; therefore
   IDNA does not depend on changes to any infrastructure.  In
   particular, IDNA does not depend on any changes to DNS servers,
   resolvers, or protocol elements, because the ASCII name service
   provided by the existing DNS is entirely sufficient for IDNA.

   IDNA is applied only to DNS labels.  Standards for combining labels
   into fully-qualified domain names and parsing labels out of those
   names are covered in the base DNS standards [RFC1034] [RFC1035] and
   their various updates.  An application may, of course, apply locally-
   appropriate conventions to the presentation forms of domain names as
   discussed in [IDNA2008-Rationale].

   While they share terminology, reference data, and some operations,
   this document describes two separate protocols, one for IDN
   registration (Section 4) and one for IDN lookup (Section 5).

1.1.  Discussion Forum

   [[anchor3: RFC Editor: please remove this section.]]

   This work is being discussed in the IETF IDNABIS WG and on the
   mailing list idna-update@alvestrand.no


2.  Terminology

   General terminology applicable to IDNA, but with meanings familiar to
   those who have worked with Unicode or other character set standards
   and the DNS, appears in [IDNA2008-Defs].  Terminology that is an
   integral, normative, part of the IDNA definition, including the
   definitions of "ACE", appears in that document as well.  Familiarity
   with the terminology materials in that document is assumed for



Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


   reading this one.  The reader of this document is assumed to be
   familiar with DNS-specific terminology as defined in RFC 1034
   [RFC1034].

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
   [RFC2119].


3.  Requirements and Applicability

3.1.  Requirements

   IDNA conformance means adherence to the following requirements:

   1.  Whenever a domain name is put into an IDN-unaware domain name
       slot (see Section 2 and [IDNA2008-Defs]), it MUST contain only
       ASCII characters (i.e., must be either an A-label or an NR-LDH-
       label), or must be a label associated with a DNS application that
       is not subject to either IDNA or the historical recommendations
       for "hostname"-style names [RFC1034].

   2.  Comparison of labels MUST be done on 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.  However, when a
       pair of putative A-labels are compared, the comparison MUST use
       an ASCII case-insensitive comparison (as with all comparisons of
       ASCII DNS labels).  Comparisons on putative U-labels must test
       that the two strings are identical, without case-folding or other
       intermediate steps.  Note that it is not necessary to verify that
       labels are valid in order to compare them.  In many cases,
       verification of validity (that the strings actually are A-labels
       or U-labels) may be important for other reasons and SHOULD be
       performed.

   3.  Labels being registered MUST conform to the requirements of
       Section 4.  Labels being looked up and the lookup process MUST
       conform to the requirements of Section 5.

3.2.  Applicability

   IDNA is applicable to all domain names in all domain name slots
   except where it is explicitly excluded.  It is not applicable to
   domain name slots which do not use the LDH syntax rules.

   This implies that IDNA is applicable to many protocols that predate



Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


   IDNA.  Note that IDNs occupying domain name slots in those older
   protocols MUST be in A-label form until and unless those protocols
   and implementations of them are upgraded to be IDN-aware.  IDNs
   actually appearing in DNS queries or responses MUST be A-labels.

3.2.1.  DNS Resource Records

   IDNA applies only to domain names in the NAME and RDATA fields of DNS
   resource records whose CLASS is IN.

   There are currently no other exclusions on the applicability of IDNA
   to DNS resource records.  Applicability depends entirely on the
   CLASS, and not on the TYPE except as noted below.  This will remain
   true, even as new types are defined, unless there is a compelling
   reason for a new type that requires type-specific rules.  The special
   naming conventions applicable to SRV records are examples of type-
   specific rules that are incompatible with IDNA coding.  Hence the
   first two labels (the ones required to start in "_") on a record with
   TYPE SRV MUST NOT be A-labels or U-labels (while it would be possible
   to write a non-ASCII string with a leading underscore, conversion to
   an A-label would be impossible without loss of information because
   the underscore is not a letter, digit, or hyphen and is consequently
   DISALLOWED in IDNs).  Of course, those labels may be part of a domain
   that uses IDN labels at higher levels in the tree.

3.2.2.  Non-domain-name Data Types Stored in the DNS

   Although IDNA enables the representation of non-ASCII characters in
   domain names, that does not imply that IDNA enables the
   representation of non-ASCII characters in other data types that are
   stored in domain names, specifically in the RDATA field for types
   that have structured RDATA format.  For example, an email address
   local part is stored in a domain name in the RNAME field as part of
   the RDATA of an SOA record (hostmaster@example.com would be
   represented as hostmaster.example.com).  IDNA specifically does not
   update the existing email standards, which allow only ASCII
   characters in local parts.  Even though work is in progress to define
   internationalization for email addresses [RFC4952], changes to the
   email address part of the SOA RDATA would require action in, or
   updates to, other standards, specifically those that specify the
   format of the SOA RR.


4.  Registration Protocol

   This section defines the procedure for registering an IDN.  The
   procedure is implementation independent; any sequence of steps that
   produces exactly the same result for all labels is considered a valid



Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


   implementation.

   Note that, while the registration and lookup protocols (Section 5)
   are very similar in most respects, they are different and
   implementers should carefully follow the steps they are implementing.

4.1.  Input to IDNA Registration Process

   [[anchor8: Note in Draft: This subsection is new in -09/, based on
   comments on the mailing list in January and February 2009.  It
   replaces the previous first two subsections of this section and
   completely eliminates the discussion of local mapping for
   registration.]]

   Registration processes are outside the scope of these protocols and
   may differ significantly depending on local needs.  By the time a
   string enters the IDNA registration process as described in this
   specification, it is expected to be in Unicode and MUST be in Unicode
   Normalization Form C (NFC [Unicode-UAX15]).  Entities responsible for
   zone files ("registries") are expected to accept only the exact
   string for which registration is requested, free of any mappings or
   local adjustments.  They SHOULD avoid any possible ambiguity by
   accepting registrations only for A-labels, possibly paired with the
   relevant U-labels so that they can verify the correspondence.

4.2.  Permitted Character and Label Validation

4.2.1.  Input Format

   The registry MAY permit submission of labels in A-label form and is
   encouraged to accept both the A-label form and the U-label one.  If
   it does so, it MUST perform a conversion to a U-label, perform the
   steps and tests described below, and verify that the A-label produced
   by the step in Section 4.4 matches the one provided as input.  In
   addition, if a U-label was provided, that U-label and the one
   obtained by conversion of the A-label MUST match exactly.  If, for
   some reason, these tests fail, the registration MUST be rejected.  If
   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.  Fake A-labels, i.e.,
   invalid strings that appear to be A-labels but are not, MUST NOT be
   placed in DNS zones that support IDNA.







Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


4.2.2.  Rejection of Characters that are not Permitted

   The candidate Unicode string is checked to verify that characters
   that IDNA does not permit do not appear in it.  Those characters are
   identified in the "DISALLOWED" and "UNASSIGNED" lists that are
   specified in [IDNA2008-Tables] and described informally in
   [IDNA2008-Rationale].  Characters that are either DISALLOWED or
   UNASSIGNED MUST NOT be part of labels to be processed for
   registration in the DNS.

4.2.3.  Label Validation

   The proposed label (in the form of a Unicode string, i.e., a putative
   U-label) is then examined, performing tests that require examination
   of more than one character.

4.2.3.1.  Rejection of Hyphen Sequences in U-labels

   The Unicode string MUST NOT contain "--" (two consecutive hyphens) in
   the third and fourth character positions when the label is considered
   in "on the wire" order.

4.2.3.2.  Leading Combining Marks

   The first character of the string (when the label is considered in
   "on the wire" order) is examined to verify that it is not a combining
   mark (or combining character) (see The Unicode Standard, Section 2.11
   [Unicode] for an exact definition).  If it is a combining mark, the
   string MUST NOT be registered.

4.2.3.3.  Contextual Rules

   Each code point is checked for its identification as a character
   requiring contextual processing for registration (the list of
   characters appears as the combination of CONTEXTJ and CONTEXTO in
   [IDNA2008-Tables] as do the contextual rules themselves).  If that
   indication appears, the table of contextual rules is checked for a
   rule for that character.  If no rule is found, the proposed label is
   rejected and MUST NOT be installed in a zone file.  If one is found,
   it is applied (typically as a test on the entire label or on adjacent
   characters within the label).  If the application of the rule does
   not conclude that the character is valid in context, the proposed
   label MUST BE rejected.  (See the IANA Considerations: IDNA Context
   Registry section of [IDNA2008-Tables].)

   These contextual rules are required to support the use of characters
   that could be used, under other conditions, to produce misleading
   labels or to cause unacceptable ambiguity in label matching and



Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


   interpretation.  For example, labels containing invisible ("zero-
   width") characters may be permitted in context with characters whose
   presentation forms are significantly changed by the presence or
   absence of the zero-width characters, while other labels in which
   zero-width characters appear may be rejected.

4.2.3.4.  Labels Containing Characters Written Right to Left

   Special tests are required for strings containing characters that are
   normally written from right to left.  The criteria for classifying
   characters in terms of directionality are identified in the "Bidi"
   document [IDNA2008-BIDI] in this series.  That document also
   describes conditions for strings that contain one or more of those
   characters to be U-labels.  The tests for those conditions, specified
   there, are applied.  Strings that contain right to left characters
   but that do not conform to the IDNA Bidi rules MUST NOT be inserted
   as labels in zone files.

4.2.4.  Registration Validation Summary

   Strings that contain at least one non-ASCII character, have been
   produced by the steps above, whose contents pass all of the tests in
   Section 4.2, and are 63 or fewer characters long in ACE form (see
   Section 4.4), are U-labels.

   To summarize, tests are made in Section 4.2 for invalid characters,
   invalid combinations of characters, for labels that are invalid even
   if the characters they contain are valid individually, and for labels
   that do not conform to the restrictions for strings containing right
   to left characters.

4.3.  Registry Restrictions

   Registries at all levels of the DNS, not just the top level, are
   expected to establish policies about the labels that may be
   registered, and for the processes associated with that action.  While
   exact policies are not specified as part of IDNA2008 and it is
   expected that different registries may specify different policies,
   there SHOULD be policies.  Even a trivial policy (e.g., "anything can
   be registered in this zone that can be represented as an A-label -
   U-label pair") has value because it provides notice to users and
   applications implementers that the registry cannot be relied upon to
   provide even minimal user-protection restrictions.  These per-
   registry policies and restrictions are an essential element of the
   IDNA registration protocol even for registries (and corresponding
   zone files) deep in the DNS hierarchy.  As discussed in
   [IDNA2008-Rationale], such restrictions have always existed in the
   DNS.  That document also contains a discussion and recommendations



Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


   about possible types of rules.

   The string produced by the above steps is checked and processed as
   appropriate to local registry restrictions.  Application of those
   registry restrictions may result in the rejection of some labels or
   the application of special restrictions to others.

4.4.  Punycode Conversion

   The resulting U-label is converted to an A-label.  The A-label, more
   precisely defined elsewhere, is the encoding of the U-label according
   to the Punycode algorithm [RFC3492] with the ACE prefix "xn--" added
   at the beginning of the string.  The resulting string must, of
   course, conform to the length limits imposed by the DNS.  This
   document updates RFC 3492 only to the extent of replacing the
   reference to the discussion of the ACE prefix.  The ACE prefix is now
   specified in this document rather than as part of RFC 3490 or
   Nameprep [RFC3491] but is the same in both sets of documents.

   The failure conditions identified in the Punycode encoding procedure
   cannot occur if the input is a U-label as determined by the steps
   above.

4.5.  Insertion in the Zone

   The A-label is registered in the DNS by insertion into a zone.


5.  Domain Name Lookup Protocol

   Lookup is conceptually different from registration and different
   tests are applied on the client.  Although some validity checks are
   necessary to avoid serious problems with the protocol (see
   Section 5.5ff.), the lookup-side tests are more permissive and rely
   on the assumption that names that are present in the DNS are valid.
   That assumption is, however, a weak one because the presence of wild
   cards in the DNS might cause a string that is not actually registered
   in the DNS to be successfully looked up.

   For convenience in description, we introduce an extra concept, a
   "C-label", to describe a string that has the same appearance as an
   A-label but that has been verified only to meet the somewhat more
   flexible lookup requirements.

   [[anchor14: Note in Draft: Try to reorganize and renumber Section 5
   (Lookup) so that it exactly parallels Section 4 (Registration).  This
   has no been done in draft -10 because the task will be much easier if
   the local mapping material is pulled from here (and there is no point



Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


   trying to align the section numbers twice).]]

5.1.  Label String Input

   The user supplies a string in the local character set, typically by
   typing it or clicking on, or copying and pasting, a resource
   identifier, e.g., a URI [RFC3986] or IRI [RFC3987] from which the
   domain name is extracted.  Alternately, some process not directly
   involving the user may read the string from a file or obtain it in
   some other way.  Processing in this step and the next two are local
   matters, to be accomplished prior to actual invocation of IDNA, but
   at least the two steps in Section 5.2 and Section 5.3 must be
   accomplished in some way.

5.2.  Conversion to Unicode

   The string is converted from the local character set into Unicode, if
   it is not already Unicode.  The exact nature of this conversion is
   beyond the scope of this document, but may involve normalization
   identical to that discussed in Section 4.1.  The result MUST be a
   Unicode string in NFC form.

5.3.  Character Changes in Preprocessing or the User Interface

   [[anchor15: Note in Draft -10.  As of the time this draft was posted,
   the WG was continuing to discuss various alternatives to this
   section, which was pragmatic relative to various options and behavior
   but that seems to make no one happy from a predictability or
   transition standpoint.  Please see the (temporary) first appendix to
   this document for a first cut at possible alternate formulations.]]

   The Unicode string MAY then be processed to prevent confounding of
   user expectations.  For instance, it might be reasonable, at this
   step, to convert all upper case characters to lower case, if this
   makes sense in the user's environment, but even this should be
   approached with caution due to some edge cases: in the long term, it
   is probably better for users to understand IDNs strictly in lower-
   case, U-label, form.  More generally, preprocessing may be useful to
   smooth the transition from IDNA2003, especially for direct user
   input, but with similar cautions.  In general, IDNs appearing in
   files and those transmitted across the network as part of protocols
   are expected to be in either ASCII form (including A-labels) or to
   contain U-labels, rather than being in forms requiring mapping or
   other conversions.

   Other examples of processing for localization might be applied,
   especially to direct user input, at this point.  They include
   interpreting various characters as separating domain name components



Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


   from each other (label separators) because they either look like
   periods or are used to separate sentences, mapping halfwidth or
   fullwidth East Asian characters to the common form permitted in
   labels, or giving special treatment to characters whose presentation
   forms are dependent only on placement in the label.  Such
   localization changes are also outside the scope of this
   specification.

   Recommendations for preprocessing for global contexts (i.e., when
   local considerations do not apply or cannot be used) and for maximum
   interoperability with labels that might have been specified under
   liberal readings of IDNA2003 are given in [IDNA2008-Rationale].  It
   is important to note that the intent of these specifications is that
   labels in application protocols, files, or links are intended to be
   in U-label or A-label form.  Preprocessing MUST NOT map a character
   that is valid in a label as specified elsewhere in this document or
   in [IDNA2008-Tables] into another character.  Excessively liberal use
   of preprocessing, especially to strings stored in files, poses a
   threat to consistent and predictable behavior for the user even if
   not to actual interoperability.

   Because these transformations are local, it is important that domain
   names that might be passed between systems (e.g., in IRIs) be
   U-labels or A-labels and not forms that might be accepted locally as
   a consequence of this step.  This step is not standardized as part of
   IDNA, and is not further specified here.

5.4.  A-label Input

   If the input to this procedure appears to be an A-label (i.e., it
   starts in "xn--"), the lookup application MAY attempt to convert it
   to a U-label and apply the tests of Section 5.5 and the conversion of
   Section 5.6 to that form.  If the label is converted to Unicode
   (i.e., to U-label form) using the Punycode decoding algorithm, then
   the processing specified in those two sections MUST be performed, and
   the label MUST be rejected if the resulting label is not identical to
   the original.  See the Name Server Considerations section of
   [IDNA2008-Rationale] for additional discussion on this topic.

   That conversion and testing SHOULD be performed if the domain name
   will later be presented to the user in native character form (this
   requires that the lookup application be IDNA-aware).  If those steps
   are not performed, the lookup process SHOULD at least make tests to
   determine that the string is actually an A-label, examining it for
   the invalid formats specified in the Punycode decoding specification.
   Applications that are not IDNA-aware will obviously omit that
   testing; others MAY treat the string as opaque to avoid the
   additional processing at the expense of providing less protection and



Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


   information to users.

5.5.  Validation and Character List Testing

   As with the registration procedure described in Section 4, the
   Unicode string is checked to verify that all characters that appear
   in it are valid as input to IDNA lookup processing.  As discussed
   above and in [IDNA2008-Rationale], the lookup check is more liberal
   than the registration one.  Putative labels with any of the following
   characteristics MUST BE rejected prior to DNS lookup:

   o  Labels containing code points that are unassigned in the version
      of Unicode being used by the application, i.e.,in the UNASSIGNED
      category of [IDNA2008-Tables].

   o  Labels that are not in NFC form as defined in [Unicode-UAX15].

   o  Labels containing prohibited code points, i.e., those that are
      assigned to the "DISALLOWED" category in the permitted character
      table [IDNA2008-Tables].

   o  Labels containing code points that are identified in
      [IDNA2008-Tables] as "CONTEXTJ", i.e., requiring exceptional
      contextual rule processing on lookup, but that do not conform to
      that rule.  Note that this implies that a rule much be defined,
      not null: a character that requires a contextual rule but for
      which the rule is null is treated in this step as having failed to
      conform to the rule.

   o  Labels containing code points that are identified in
      [IDNA2008-Tables] as "CONTEXTO", but for which no such rule
      appears in the table of rules.  Applications resolving DNS names
      or carrying out equivalent operations are not required to test
      contextual rules for "CONTEXTO" characters, only to verify that a
      rule is defined (although they MAY make such tests to give better
      information to the user).

   o  Labels whose first character is a combining mark (see
      Section 4.2.3.2.

   In addition, the application SHOULD apply the following test.  The
   test may be omitted in special circumstances, such as when the lookup
   application knows that the conditions are enforced elsewhere, because
   an attempt to look up and resolve such strings will almost certainly
   lead to a DNS lookup failure except when wildcards are present in the
   zone.  However, applying the test is likely to give much better
   information about the reason for a lookup failure -- information that
   may be usefully passed to the user when that is feasible -- than DNS



Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


   resolution failure information alone.  In any event, lookup
   applications should avoid attempting to resolve labels that are
   invalid under that test.

   o  Verification that the string is compliant with the requirements
      for right to left characters, specified in [IDNA2008-BIDI].

   For all other strings, the lookup application MUST rely on the
   presence or absence of labels in the DNS to determine the validity of
   those labels and the validity of the characters they contain.  If
   they are registered, they are presumed to be valid; if they are not,
   their possible validity is not relevant.  A lookup application that
   declines to process a string that conforms to the rules above and
   does not look it up in the DNS is not in conformance with this
   protocol.

5.6.  Punycode Conversion

   The validated string, an apparent U-label, is converted to an
   apparent A-label using the Punycode algorithm with the ACE prefix
   added.  These label forms are "apparent" U-labels and A-labels
   because not all of the tests used in the Registration procedure
   (Section 4) to effectively define those terms precisely are applied
   in this lookup procedure.
   [[anchor16: Note in Draft: As of -10, we are back to "apparent" (or
   "putative" if the WG prefers) label forms.  The previous text
   asserted that these strings were A-labels and U-labels, which was
   clearly wrong, since those terms are defined in terms of complete
   validity and all of the registration tests.  Mark suggested an
   alternative, which was to introduce a new term, C-label, which was a
   superset of A-labels but with fewer test conditions.  I like the
   idea, but could not figure out how to make it work without also
   introducing a near-U-label term, and that started to become much too
   terminology heavy to be followed easily.  Suggestions of ways out of
   this, preferably with specific text for this document and Defs, would
   be welcome.]]

5.7.  DNS Name Resolution

   The resulting string (the apparent A-label) is looked up in the DNS,
   using normal DNS resolver procedures.


6.  Security Considerations

   Security Considerations for this version of IDNA, except for the
   special issues associated with right to left scripts and characters,
   are described in [IDNA2008-Defs].  Specific issues for labels



Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


   containing characters associated with scripts written right to left
   appear in [IDNA2008-BIDI].


7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA actions for this version of IDNA are specified in
   [IDNA2008-Tables] and discussed informally in [IDNA2008-Rationale].
   The components of IDNA described in this document do not require any
   IANA actions.


8.  Contributors

   While the listed editor held the pen, the original versions of this
   document represent the joint work and conclusions of an ad hoc design
   team consisting of the editor and, in alphabetic order, Harald
   Alvestrand, Tina Dam, Patrik Faltstrom, and Cary Karp.  This document
   draws significantly on the original version of IDNA [RFC3490] both
   conceptually and for specific text.  This second-generation version
   would not have been possible without the work that went into that
   first version and its authors, Patrik Faltstrom, Paul Hoffman, and
   Adam Costello.  While Faltstrom was actively involved in the creation
   of this version, Hoffman and Costello were not and should not be held
   responsible for any errors or omissions.


9.  Acknowledgments

   This revision to IDNA would have been impossible without the
   accumulated experience since RFC 3490 was published and resulting
   comments and complaints of many people in the IETF, ICANN, and other
   communities, too many people to list here.  Nor would it have been
   possible without RFC 3490 itself and the efforts of the Working Group
   that defined it.  Those people whose contributions are acknowledged
   in RFC 3490, [RFC4690], and [IDNA2008-Rationale] were particularly
   important.

   Specific textual changes were incorporated into this document after
   suggestions from the other contributors, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Vint
   Cerf, Mark Davis, Paul Hoffman, Kent Karlsson, Erik van der Poel,
   Marcos Sanz, Andrew Sullivan, Ken Whistler, and other WG
   participants.  Special thanks are due to Paul Hoffman for permission
   to extract material from his Internet-Draft to form the basis for
   Appendix B


10.  References



Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


10.1.  Normative References

   [IDNA2008-BIDI]
              Alvestrand, H. and C. Karp, "An updated IDNA criterion for
              right-to-left scripts", July 2008, <https://
              datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi/>.

   [IDNA2008-Defs]
              Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
              Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
              February 2009, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/
              draft-ietf-idnabis-defs/>.

   [IDNA2008-Tables]
              Faltstrom, P., "The Unicode Codepoints and IDNA",
              July 2008, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/
              draft-ietf-idnabis-tables/>.

              A version of this document is available in HTML format at
              http://stupid.domain.name/idnabis/
              draft-ietf-idnabis-tables-02.html

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [RFC1123]  Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application
              and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3492]  Costello, A., "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode
              for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications
              (IDNA)", RFC 3492, March 2003.

   [Unicode-PropertyValueAliases]
              The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Character Database:
              PropertyValueAliases", March 2008, <http://
              www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/PropertyValueAliases.txt>.

   [Unicode-RegEx]
              The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Technical Standard #18:
              Unicode Regular Expressions", May 2005,
              <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr18/>.




Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


   [Unicode-Scripts]
              The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Standard Annex #24:
              Unicode Script Property", February 2008,
              <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24/>.

   [Unicode-UAX15]
              The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Standard Annex #15:
              Unicode Normalization Forms", 2006,
              <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [ASCII]    American National Standards Institute (formerly United
              States of America Standards Institute), "USA Code for
              Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4-1968, 1968.

              ANSI X3.4-1968 has been replaced by newer versions with
              slight modifications, but the 1968 version remains
              definitive for the Internet.

   [IDNA2008-Rationale]
              Klensin, J., Ed., "Internationalizing Domain Names for
              Applications (IDNA): Issues, Explanation, and Rationale",
              February 2009, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/
              draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale>.

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

   [RFC2181]  Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
              Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997.

   [RFC2535]  Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions",
              RFC 2535, March 1999.

   [RFC2671]  Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)",
              RFC 2671, August 1999.

   [RFC3490]  Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
              "Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
              RFC 3490, March 2003.

   [RFC3491]  Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Nameprep: A Stringprep
              Profile for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)",
              RFC 3491, March 2003.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform



Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, January 2005.

   [RFC3987]  Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
              Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, January 2005.

   [RFC4690]  Klensin, J., Faltstrom, P., Karp, C., and IAB, "Review and
              Recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names
              (IDNs)", RFC 4690, September 2006.

   [RFC4952]  Klensin, J. and Y. Ko, "Overview and Framework for
              Internationalized Email", RFC 4952, July 2007.

   [Unicode]  The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
              5.0", 2007.

              Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley.  ISBN 0-321-48091-0


Appendix A.  Local Mapping Alternatives

   The subsections of this appendix are temporary and represent
   different sketches of possible replacements for Section 5.3.  They do
   not represent an assertion of WG consensus or any assertion about the
   possibility of including one of them as part of the WG's work
   program.  Instead, they are supplied only for purposes of comparison,
   discussion, and, should it be relevant, refinement.

   The first paragraph of each subsection describes how the material
   would be placed relative to the existing main document text.
   Subsequent paragraphs are the actual suggestions, although in
   incomplete sketch form.

A.1.  Transitional Mapping Model

   If this subsection were adopted, Section 5.3 would be deleted and
   this one would be inserted after, or integrated with, Section 5.7.

   This specification does not support the extensive mappings from one
   character to another, including Unicode Case Folding and
   Compatibility Character mapping, of IDNA2003.  It also changes the
   interpretations of a small number of characters relative to IDNA2003.
   Most applications, especially those with which IDNs have been used
   for some time, will need to maintain reasonable compatibility with
   files created under IDNA2003 and user interfaces designed for it.
   This section specifies additional steps to be taken to provide
   maximum IDNA2003 compatibility.




Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


   If an application requires IDNA2003 backward compatibility, it MUST
   execute one of the two bulleted steps below.

   o  If the resolution attempt in Section 5.7 fails, the apparent
      U-label is processed through the ToASCII operation specified in
      IDNA2003 [RFC3490] and, if the two apparent A-labels are not
      identical, the result is looked up.  If it is found, the relevant
      values are handled as if the resolution attempt in Section 5.7 had
      succeeded with that value.  If the resolution attempt in
      Section 5.7 is successful, this step simply produces that value.

   o  Once the resolution attempt in Section 5.7 is completed, the
      apparent U-label is processed through the ToASCII operation
      specified in IDNA2003 [RFC3490].  The two apparent A-labels are
      compared to each other.  If they are not identical, the second one
      is looked up as well.  If one of the two lookups is successful and
      the other is not, that value is used as the result of the lookup.
      If both are successful, the user is presented with a choice.  If
      neither is successful, the IDNA lookup fails.

   Note that, if both interpretations of the name return values, the
   lookup application has no practical way to tell whether the relevant
   registry has applied "variant" or "bundling" techniques to ensure
   that both domain name are under the same control or not.  From that
   perspective, the first of these approaches assumes that has been done
   (if the IDNA2003-interpretation label is present at all) while the
   second assumes that such bundling is unlikely to have occurred.
   [[anchor24: Note in Draft: If this appendix is used, RFC3490 must be
   moved from Informative to Normative.]]

A.2.  Internationalized Resource Identifier (IRI) Mapping Model

   This subsection is intended to be descriptive of an approach that
   lies outside IDNA, rather than a normative component of it.  If it
   were adopted, Section 5.3 would be deleted and the material below
   would be referenced, either as a non-normative Appendix in Protocol
   or, more reasonably, as a section of Rationale.

   IDNA2003 supported extensive mappings from one character to another,
   including Unicode Case Folding and Compatibility Character mapping.
   Those mappings are no longer supported on registration and are
   inconsistent with the "exact match" lookups that people expect from
   the DNS.  Some mapping should still be supported, both for
   compatibility with applications that assume IDNA2003 and to avoid
   confounding user expectations.  The specific mappings involved are
   not part of IDNA, but are expected to be specified as part of a
   revision to the IRI specification [RFC3987] and the conversion from
   IRI form to URI form.  That change leaves mapping unspecified and



Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


   prohibited for actual domain names, however, in practice, most domain
   names, especially in the web applications that appear to have been
   most important for IDNs between the publication of IDNA2003 and the
   release of this specification, are not interpreted as themselves but
   as abbreviated form of URIs or IRIs and hence subject to the
   transformation rules of the latter.


Appendix B.  Summary of Major Changes from IDNA2003

   1.   Update base character set from Unicode 3.2 to Unicode version-
        agnostic.

   2.   Separate the definitions for the "registration" and "lookup"
        activities.

   3.   Disallow symbol and punctuation characters except where special
        exceptions are necessary.

   4.   Remove the mapping and normalization steps from the protocol and
        have them instead done by the applications themselves, possibly
        in a local fashion, before invoking the protocol.

   5.   Change the way that the protocol specifies which characters are
        allowed in labels from "humans decide what the table of
        codepoints contains" to "decision about codepoints are based on
        Unicode properties plus a small exclusion list created by
        humans".

   6.   Introduce the new concept of characters that can be used only in
        specific contexts.

   7.   Allow typical words and names in languages such as Dhivehi and
        Yiddish to be expressed.

   8.   Make bidirectional domain names (delimited strings of labels,
        not just labels standing on their own) display in a less
        surprising fashion whether they appear in obvious domain name
        contexts or as part of running text in paragraphs.

   9.   Remove the dot separator from the mandatory part of the
        protocol.

   10.  Make some currently-valid labels that are not actually IDNA
        labels invalid.






Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


Appendix C.  Change Log

   [[anchor27: RFC Editor: Please remove this appendix.]]

C.1.  Changes between Version -00 and -01 of draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol

   o  Corrected discussion of SRV records.

   o  Several small corrections for clarity.

   o  Inserted more "open issue" placeholders.

C.2.  Version -02

   o  Rewrote the "conversion to Unicode" text in Section 5.2 as
      requested on-list.

   o  Added a comment (and reference) about EDNS0 to the "DNS Server
      Conventions" section, which was also retitled.

   o  Made several editorial corrections and improvements in response to
      various comments.

   o  Added several new discussion placeholder anchors and updated some
      older ones.

C.3.  Version -03

   o  Trimmed change log, removing information about pre-WG drafts.

   o  Incorporated a number of changes suggested by Marcos Sanz in his
      note of 2008.07.17 and added several more placeholder anchors.

   o  Several minor editorial corrections and improvements.

   o  "Editor" designation temporarily removed because the automatic
      posting machinery does not accept it.

C.4.  Version -04

   o  Removed Contextual Rule appendices for transfer to Tables.

   o  Several changes, including removal of discussion anchors, based on
      discussions at IETF 72 (Dublin)

   o  Rewrote the preprocessing material (Section 5.3) somewhat.





Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


C.5.  Version -05

   o  Updated part of the A-label input explanation (Section 5.4) per
      note from Erik van der Poel.

C.6.  Version -06

   o  Corrected a few typographical errors.

   o  Incorporated the material (formerly in Rationale) on the
      relationship between IDNA2003 and IDNA2008 as an appendix and
      pointed to the new definitions document.

   o  Text modified in several places to recognize the dangers of
      interaction between DNS wildcards and IDNs.

   o  Text added to be explicit about the handling of edge and failure
      cases in Punycode encoding and decoding.

   o  Revised for consistency with the new Definitions document and to
      make the text read more smoothly.

C.7.  Version -07

   o  Multiple small textual and editorial changes and clarifications.

   o  Requirement for normalization clarified to apply to all cases and
      conditions for preprocessing further clarified.

   o  Substantive change to Section 4.2.1, turning a SHOULD to a MUST
      (see note from Mark Davis, 19 November, 2008 18:14 -0800).

C.8.  Version -08

   o  Added some references and altered text to improve clarity.

   o  Changed the description of CONTEXTJ/CONTEXTO to conform to that in
      Tables.  In other words, these are now treated as distinction
      categories (again), rather than as specially-flagged subsets of
      PROTOCOL VALID.

   o  The discussion of label comparisons has been rewritten to make it
      more precise and to clarify that one does not need to verify that
      a string is a [valid] A-label or U-label in order to test it for
      equality with another string.  The WG should verify that the
      current text is what is desired.





Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 23]

Internet-Draft              IDNA2008 Protocol                 March 2009


   o  Other changes to reflect post-IETF discussions or editorial
      improvements.

C.9.  Version -09

   o  Removed Security Considerations material to Defs document.

   o  Removed the Name Server Considerations material to Rationale.
      That material is not normative and not needed to implement the
      protocol itself.

   o  Adjusted terminology to match new version of Defs.

   o  Removed all discussion of local mapping and option for it from
      registration protocol.

   o  Removed some old placeholders and inquiries because no comments
      have been received.

   o  Small editorial corrections.

C.10.  Version -10

   o  Rewrote the registration input material slightly to further
      clarify the "no mapping on registration" principle.

   o  Added placeholder notes about several tasks, notably reorganizing
      Section 4 and Section 5 so that subsection numbers are parallel.

   o  Cleaned up an incorrect use of the terms "A-label" and "U-label"
      in the lookup phase that was spotted by Mark Davis.  Inserted a
      note there about alternate ways to deal with the resulting
      terminology problem.

   o  Added a temporarily appendix (above) to document alternate
      strategies for possible replacements for Section 5.3.


Author's Address

   John C Klensin
   1770 Massachusetts Ave, Ste 322
   Cambridge, MA  02140
   USA

   Phone: +1 617 245 1457
   Email: john+ietf@jck.com




Klensin                 Expires September 6, 2009              [Page 24]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/