Network Working Group D. Thaler Internet-Draft Microsoft Intended status: Informational July 6, 2009 Expires: January 7, 2010 IAB Thoughts on Encodings for Internationalized Domain Names draft-iab-idn-encoding-00.txt Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 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 January 7, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 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 explores issues with Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) that result from the use of various encoding schemes such as Punycode and UTF-8. Thaler Expires January 7, 2010 [Page 1] Internet-Draft IDN Encodings July 2009 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. APIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Use of Non-DNS Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Use of Non-ASCII in DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. IAB Members at the time of this writing . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Thaler Expires January 7, 2010 [Page 2] Internet-Draft IDN Encodings July 2009 1. Introduction The goal of this document is to explore what can be learned from the current difficulties in implementing Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs). Although some elements of this exploration may immediately feed back into current IETF work it is explicitly not the intention for this document to influence any current working group charter. An Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) is a name that contains one or more non-ASCII characters. An IDN can be encoded in various ways. Punycode [RFC3492] is a mechanism for encoding a Unicode string in ASCII characters using only letters, digits, and hypens. When an IDN is encoded with Punycode, it is prefixed with "xn--", which assumes that ASCII names do not start with this prefix. While this assumption is not necessarily true, taking this limitation is seen to be acceptable. The term "ToASCII" refers to the combination of a non-reversible character mapping operation (e.g., converting upper case characters to lower case characters), plus a reversible Unicode-to-Punycode conversion. Similarly, the term "ToUnicode" refers to the combination of a non-reversible character mapping operation, plus a reversible Punycode-to-Unicode conversion. ISO-2022-JP [RFC1468] is a mechanism for encoding a string of ASCII and Japanese characters, where an ASCII character is preserved as-is. UTF-8 [RFC3629] is a mechanism for encoding a Unicode character in a variable number of 8-bit octets, where an ASCII character is preserved as-is. A UTF-8 string is thus a string of UTF-8 characters. UTF-16 [RFC2781] is a mechanism for encoding a Unicode character in one or two 16-bit integers. A UTF-16 string is thus a string of UTF-16 characters. UTF-32 (formerly UCS-4) ([UNICODE] section 3.10) is a mechanism for encoding a Unicode character in a single 32-bit integer. A UTF-32 string is thus a string of UTF-32 characters. Different applications, APIs, and protocols use different encoding schemes today. Historically, many of them were originally defined to use only ASCII. Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) [RFC3490] defined a mechanism that required changes to applications, but not APIs or servers, and specifies that Punycode is to be used. Thaler Expires January 7, 2010 [Page 3] Internet-Draft IDN Encodings July 2009 [RFC3490] section 1.3 states: The IDNA protocol is contained completely within applications. It is not a client-server or peer-to-peer protocol: everything is done inside the application itself. When used with a DNS resolver library, IDNA is inserted as a "shim" between the application and the resolver library. When used for writing names into a DNS zone, IDNA is used just before the name is committed to the zone. Figure 1 depicts a simplistic architecture that a naive reader might assume from the paragraph quoted above. (A variant of this same picture appears in [RFC3490] section 6, further strengthening this assumption.) +-----------------------------------------+ |Host | | +-------------+ | | | Application | | | +------+------+ | | | | | +----+----+ | | | DNS | | | | Resolver| | | | Library | | | +----+----+ | | | | +-----------------------------------------+ | _________|_________ / \ / \ / \ | Internet | \ / \ / \___________________/ Simplistic Architecture Figure 1 There are, however, two problems with this simplistic architecture that cause it to differ from reality. First, resolver APIs on OS's today (MacOS, Windows, Linux, etc.) are not DNS-specific. They typically provide a layer of indirection so that the application can work independent of the name resolution mechanism, which could be DNS, mDNS Thaler Expires January 7, 2010 [Page 4] Internet-Draft IDN Encodings July 2009 [I-D.cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns], LLMNR [RFC4795], NetBIOS-over-TCP [RFC1001][RFC1002], etc/hosts file [RFC0952], NIS [NIS], or anything else. For example, RFC 3493 [RFC3493] specifies the getaddrinfo() API and contains many phrases like "For example, when using the DNS" and "any type of name resolution service (for example, the DNS)". Importantly, DNS is mentioned only as an example, and the application has no knowledge as to whether DNS or some other protocol will be used. Second, even with the DNS protocol, private name spaces (sometimes referred to as "split DNS"), do not necessarily use the same character set encoding scheme as the public Internet name space. We will discuss each of the above issues in subsequent sections. For reference, Figure 2 depicts a more realistic architecture on typical hosts today. More generally, the host may be multi-homed to one or more local networks, each of which may or may not be connected to the public Internet and may or may not have a private name space. Thaler Expires January 7, 2010 [Page 5] Internet-Draft IDN Encodings July 2009 +-----------------------------------------+ |Host | | +-------------+ | | | Application | | | +------+------+ | | | | | +------+------+ | | | Sockets | | | | Library | | | +------+------+ | | | | | +-----+------+---+--+-------+-----+ | | | | | | | | | | +-+-++--+--++--+-++---+---++--+--++-+-+ | | |DNS||LLMNR||mDNS||NetBIOS||hosts||...| | | +---++-----++----++-------++-----++---+ | | | +-----------------------------------------+ | ______|______ / \ / \ / local \ \ network / \ / \_____________/ | _________|_________ / \ / \ / \ | Internet | \ / \ / \___________________/ Realistic Architecture Figure 2 1.1. APIs [RFC3490] section 6.2 states: It is expected that new versions of the resolver libraries in the future will be able to accept domain names in other charsets than ASCII, and application developers might one day pass not only domain names in Unicode, but also in local script to a new API for Thaler Expires January 7, 2010 [Page 6] Internet-Draft IDN Encodings July 2009 the resolver libraries in the operating system. Thus the ToASCII and ToUnicode operations might be performed inside these new versions of the resolver libraries. Resolver APIs such as getaddrinfo() and its predecessor gethostbyname() were defined to accept "char *" arguments, meaning they accept a string of bytes, terminated with a NULL (0) byte. This is sufficient for ASCII strings, Punycode strings, and even ISO-2022-JP and UTF-8 strings (unless an implementation artificially precludes them), but not UTF-16 or UTF-32 strings. Several operating systems historically used in Japan will accept (and expect) ISO-2022-JP strings in such APIs. Some platforms used worldwide also have new versions of the APIs (e.g., GetAddrInfoW() on Windows) that accept other encoding schemes such as UTF-16. It is worth noting that an API using "char *" arguments can distinguish between ASCII, Punycode, ISO-2022-JP, and UTF-8 strings as follows: o if the string contains an ESC (0x1B) byte the string is ISO-2022-JP; otherwise, o if any byte in the string has the high bit set, the string is UTF-8; otherwise, o if the string starts with "xn--" then it is Punycode; otherwise, o the string is ASCII. Again this assumes that ASCII names never start with "xn--", and also that UTF-8 strings never contain an ESC character. 2. Use of Non-DNS Protocols As noted earlier, typical name resolution libraries are not DNS- specific. Furthermore, some protocols are defined to use encoding schemes other than Punycode. For example, mDNS specifies that UTF-8 be used. Indeed, the IETF policy on character sets and languages [RFC2277] states: Protocols MUST be able to use the UTF-8 charset, which consists of the ISO 10646 coded character set combined with the UTF-8 character encoding scheme, as defined in [10646] Annex R (published in Amendment 2), for all text. Protocols MAY specify, in addition, how to use other charsets or other character encoding schemes for ISO 10646, such as UTF-16, but lack of an ability to use UTF-8 is a violation of this policy; such a violation would need a variance procedure ([BCP9] section 9) with clear and solid justification in the protocol specification document before being entered into or advanced upon the standards track. For existing protocols or protocols that move data from existing datastores, support of other charsets, or even using a default other than Thaler Expires January 7, 2010 [Page 7] Internet-Draft IDN Encodings July 2009 UTF-8, may be a requirement. This is acceptable, but UTF-8 support MUST be possible. Applications that convert an IDN to Punycode before calling getaddrinfo() will result in name resolution failures if the Punycode name is directly used in such protocols. Having libraries or protocols to convert from Punycode to the encoding scheme defined by the protocol (e.g., UTF-8) would require changes to APIs and/or servers, which IDNA was intended to avoid. As a result, applications that assume that non-ASCII names are resolved using the public DNS and blindly convert them to Punycode without knowledge of what protocol will be selected by the name resolution library have problems. Furthermore, name resolution libraries often try multiple protocols, until one succeeds, because they are defined to use a common name space. For example, the hosts file ([RFC0952] and [RFC1123] section 2.1), DNS ([RFC1034] section 2.1), and NetBIOS-over-TCP ([RFC1001] section 11.1.1) are all defined by RFC to be able to share a common name space. This means that when an application passes a name to be resolved, resolution may in fact be attempted using multiple protocols, each with a potentially different encoding scheme. For this to work successfully, the name must be converted to the appropriate encoding scheme only after the choice is made to use that protocol. In general, this cannot be done by the application since the choice of protocol is not made by the application. 3. Use of Non-ASCII in DNS A common misconception is that DNS only supports names that can be expressed using letters, digits, and hyphens. This misconception originally stemed from the definition of an "Internet host name" in [RFC0952], published in 1985, which defines the use of the hosts file. An Internet host name was defined therein as including only letters, digits, and hyphens, where upper and lower case letters were to be treated as identical. For DNS, [RFC1034] section 3.5 entitled "Preferred name syntax" then repeated this definition in 1987, saying that this "syntax will result in fewer problems with many applications that use domain names (e.g., mail, TELNET)". The confusion was thus left as to whether the "preferred" name syntax was a mandatory restriction, or merely "preferred". In 1989, [RFC1123] section 2.1 updated the definition of an Internet host name as defined in [RFC0952], to allow starting with a digit (to Thaler Expires January 7, 2010 [Page 8] Internet-Draft IDN Encodings July 2009 support IPv4 addresses in dotted-decimal form). Section 6.1 of that RFC discusses the use of DNS (and the hosts file) for resolving host names to IP addresses and vice versa. This led to confusion as to whether all names in DNS are "host names", or whether a "host name" is merely a special case of a DNS name. By 1997, things had progressed to a state where it was necessary to clarify these areas of confusion. "Clarifications to the DNS Specification" [RFC2181] section 11 clarifies: The DNS itself places only one restriction on the particular labels that can be used to identify resource records. That one restriction relates to the length of the label and the full name. The length of any one label is limited to between 1 and 63 octets. A full domain name is limited to 255 octets (including the separators). The zero length full name is defined as representing the root of the DNS tree, and is typically written and displayed as ".". Those restrictions aside, any binary string whatever can be used as the label of any resource record. Similarly, any binary string can serve as the value of any record that includes a domain name as some or all of its value (SOA, NS, MX, PTR, CNAME, and any others that may be added). Implementations of the DNS protocols must not place any restrictions on the labels that can be used. Hence, it clarified that the restriction to letters, digits, and hyphens does not apply to DNS names in general, nor to records that include "domain names". Hence the "preferred" name syntax specified in [RFC1034] is indeed merely "preferred", not mandatory. Since there is no restriction even to ASCII, let alone letter-digit- hyphen use, DNS is in conformance with the requirement in [RFC2277] to allow UTF-8. However, this requirement is complicated by the fact that in an 8-bit clean protocol, one has to have some way of knowing whether a binary string is encoded in UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-32, or some other encoding. While implementations of the DNS protocol must not place any restrictons on the labels that can be used, applications that use the DNS are free to impose whatever restrictions they like, and many have. The above rules permit a domain name label that contains unusual characters, such as embedded spaces which many applications would consider a bad idea. For example, the SMTP protocol [RFC5321] originally constrained the character set usable in email addresses and now has an effort underway to extend SMTP to support email address internationalization. Thaler Expires January 7, 2010 [Page 9] Internet-Draft IDN Encodings July 2009 Shortly after [RFC2181] and [RFC2277] were written, the need for internationalized names within private name spaces (i.e., within enterprises) arose. The current (and past, predating Punycode) practice within enterprises that support other languages is to put UTF-8 names in their internal DNS servers in a private name space. For example, [I-D.skwan-utf8-dns-00] was first written in 1997, and was then widely deployed in Windows. The use of UTF-8 names in DNS was similarly implemented and deployed in MacOS. Within a private name space, and especially in light of [RFC2277], it was reasonable to assume within a private name space that binary strings were encoded in UTF-8. [EDITOR'S NOTE: There are also normalization/mapping issues which the next version of this document may explore. Currently we only explore encoding issues.] Five years after UTF-8 was already in use in private name spaces in DNS, Punycode began to be developed ([I-D.ietf-idn-punycode-00] began in 2002, culminating in the publication of [RFC3492] in 2003) for use in the public DNS name space. This publication thus resulted in having to use different encodings for different name spaces (where UTF-8 for private name spaces was already deployed). Hence, referring back to Figure 2, a different encoding scheme may be in use on the Internet vs. a local network. In general a host may be connected to zero or more networks using private name spaces, plus potentially the public name space. Applications that convert an IDN to Punycode before calling getaddrinfo() will result in name resolution failures if the name is actually registered in a private name space in some other encoding (e.g., UTF-8). Having libraries or protocols convert from Punycode to the encoding used by a private name space (e.g., UTF-8) would require changes to APIs and/or servers, which IDNA was intended to avoid. Some examples of cases that can happen in existing implementations today (where {non-ASCII} below represents some user-entered non-ASCII string) are: 1. User types in {non-ASCII}.{non-ASCII}.com, and the application passes it, in the form of a UTF-8 string, to getaddrinfo or gethostbyname or equivalent. * The DNS resolver passes the (UTF-8) string unmodified to a DNS server. 2. User types in {non-ASCII}.{non-ASCII}.com, and the application passes it to a name resolution API that accepts strings in some other encoding such as UTF-16, e.g., GetAddrInfoW on Windows. Thaler Expires January 7, 2010 [Page 10] Internet-Draft IDN Encodings July 2009 * The name resolution API decides to pass the string to DNS (and possibly other protocols). * The DNS resolver converts the name from UTF-16 to UTF-8 and passes the query to a DNS server. 3. User types in {non-ASCII}.{non-ASCII}.com, but the application first converts it to Punycode such that the name that is passed to name resolution APIs is (say) xn--e1afmkfd.xn-- 80akhbyknj4f.com. * The name resolution API decides to pass the string to DNS (and possibly other protocols). * The DNS resolver passes the string unmodified to a DNS server. * If the name is not found in DNS, the name resolution API decides to try another protocol, say mDNS. * The query goes out in mDNS, but since mDNS specified that names are to be registered in UTF-8, the name isn't found since it was Punycode encoded in the query. 4. User types in {non-ASCII}, and the application passes it, in the form of a UTF-8 string, to getaddrinfo or equivalent. * The name resolution API decides to pass the string to DNS (and possibly other protocols). * The DNS resolver will append suffixes in the suffix search list, which may contain UTF-8 characters if the local network uses a private name space. * Each FQDN in turn will then be sent in a query to a DNS server, until one succeeds. 5. User types in {non-ASCII}, but the application first converts it to Punycode, such that the name that is passed to getaddrinfo or equivalent is (say) xn--e1afmkfd. * The name resolution API decides to pass the string to DNS (and possibly other protocols). * The DNS stub resolver will append suffixes in the suffix search list, which may contain UTF-8 characters if the local network uses a private name space, resulting in (say) xn-- e1afmkfd.{non-ASCII}.com * Each FQDN in turn will then be sent in a query to a DNS server, until one succeeds. * Since the private name space in this case uses UTF-8, the above queries fail, since the Punycode version of the name was not registered in that name space. 6. User types in {non-ASCII1}.{non-ASCII2}.{non-ASCII3}.com, where {non-ASCII3}.com is a public name space using Punycode, but {non- ASCII2}.{non-ASCII3}.com is a private name space using UTF-8, which is accessible to the user. The application passes the name, in the form of a UTF-8 string, to getaddrinfo or equivalent. * The name resolution API decides to pass the string to DNS (and possibly other protocols). Thaler Expires January 7, 2010 [Page 11] Internet-Draft IDN Encodings July 2009 * The DNS resolver tries to locate the authoritative server, but fails the lookup because it cannot find a server for the UTF-8 encoding of {non-ASCII3}.com, even though it would have access to the private name space. (To make this work, the private name space would need to include the UTF-8 encoding of {non- ASCII3}.com.) When users use multiple applications, some of which do Punycode conversion prior to passing a name to name resolution APIs, and some of which do not, odd behavior can result which at best violates the principle of least surprise, and at worst can result in security vulnerabilities. First consider two competing applications, such as web browsers, that are designed to achieve the same task. If the user types the same name into each browser, one may successfully resolve the name (and hence access the desired content) because the encoding scheme was correct, while the other may fail name resolution because the encoding scheme was incorrect. Hence the issue can incent users to switch to another application (which in some cases means switching to an IDNA application, and in other cases means switching away from an IDNA application). Next consider two separate applications where one is designed to be launched from the other, for example a web browser launching a media player application when the link to a media file is clicked. If both types of content (web pages and media files in this example) are hosted at the same IDN in a private name space, but one application converts to Punycode before calling name resolution APIs and the other does not, the user may be able to access a web page, click on the media file causing the media player to launch and attempt to retrieve the media file, which will then fail because the IDN encoding scheme was incorrect. Or even worse, if an attacker was able to register the same name in the other encoding scheme, may get the content from the attacker's machine. This is similar to a normal phishing attack, except that the two names represent exactly the same Unicode characters. 4. Recommendations Taking into account the issues above, it would seem inappropriate for an application to convert a name to Punycode when it does not know whether DNS will be used by the name resolution library, or whether the name exists in a private name space that uses UTF-8, or in the global DNS that uses Punycode. Instead, conversion to Punycode, UTF-8, or whatever other encoding, Thaler Expires January 7, 2010 [Page 12] Internet-Draft IDN Encodings July 2009 should be done only by an entity that knows which protocol will be used (e.g., the DNS resolver, or getaddrinfo upon deciding to pass the name to DNS), rather than by general applications that call protocol-independent name resolution APIs. Similarly, even when DNS is used, the conversion to Punycode should be done only by an entity that knows which name space will be used. That is, a more intelligent DNS resolver would be more liberal in what it would accept from an application and be able to query for both a Punycode name (e.g., over the Internet) and a UTF-8 name (e.g., over a corporate network with a private name space) in case the server only recognized one. However, we might also take into account that the various resolution behaviors discussed earlier could also occur with record updates (e.g., with Dynamic Update [RFC2136]), resulting in some names being registered in a local network's private name space by applications doing Punycode conversion, and other names being registered using UTF-8. Hence a name might have to be queried with both encodings to be sure to succeed without changes to DNS servers. Similarly, a more intelligent stub resolver would also be more liberal in what it would accept from a response as the value of a record (e.g., PTR) in that it would accept either UTF-8 or Punycode and convert them to whatever encoding is used by the application APIs to return strings to applications. Indeed the choice of conversion within the resolver libraries is consistent with the quote from [RFC3490] section 6.2 stating that Punycode conversion "might be performed inside these new versions of the resolver libraries". That said, some application-layer protocols may be defined to use Punycode rather than UTF-8 as recommended by [RFC2277]. In this case, an application may receive a Punycode name and want to pass it to name resolution APIs. Again the recommendation is that a resolver library be more liberal in what it would accept from an application would mean that such a name would be accepted and re-encoded as needed, rather than requiring the application to do so. Finally, the question remains about what a DNS server should do to handle cases where some existing applications or hosts do Punycode queries within the local network using a private name space, and other existing applications or hosts send UTF-8 queries. It is undesirable to store different records for different encodings of the same name, since this introduces the possibility for inconsistency between them. Instead, a new DNS server could treat encoding- conversion in the same way as case-insensitive comparison which a DNS server is already required to do. Two encodings are, in this sense, Thaler Expires January 7, 2010 [Page 13] Internet-Draft IDN Encodings July 2009 two representations of the same name, just as two case-different strings are. However, whereas case comparison of non-ASCII characters is complicated by ambiguities (see [RFC4690]), encoding conversion between Punycode and UTF-8 is unambiguous. [EDITOR'S NOTE: There are also normalization/mapping issues which the next version of this document may explore. Currently we only explore encoding issues.] 5. Security Considerations Having applications convert names to Punycode before calling name resolution can result in security vulnerabilities. If the name is resolved by protocols or in zones for which records are registered using other encoding schemes, an attacker can claim the Punycode version of the same name and hence trick the victim into accessing a different destination. This can be done for any non-ASCII name, even when there is no possible confusion due to case, language, or other issues. Other types of confusion beyond those resulting simply from the choice of encoding scheme are discussed in [RFC4690]. 6. IANA Considerations [RFC Editor: please remove this section prior to publication.] This document has no IANA Actions. 7. IAB Members at the time of this writing Marcelo Bagnulo Gonzalo Camarillo Stuart Cheshire Vijay Gill Russ Housley John Klensin Olaf Kolkman Gregory Lebovitz Andrew Malis Danny McPherson David Oran Jon Peterson Dave Thaler 8. References Thaler Expires January 7, 2010 [Page 14] Internet-Draft IDN Encodings July 2009 8.1. Normative References 8.2. Informative References [I-D.cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-07 (work in progress), September 2008. [I-D.ietf-idn-punycode-00] Costello, A., "Punycode version 0.3.3", draft-ietf-idn-punycode-00 (work in progress), July 2002. [I-D.skwan-utf8-dns-00] Kwan, S. and J. Gilroy, "Using the UTF-8 Character Set in the Domain Name System", draft-skwan-utf8-dns-00 (work in progress), November 1997. [NIS] Sun Microsystems, "System and Network Administration", March 1990. [RFC0952] Harrenstien, K., Stahl, M., and E. Feinler, "DoD Internet host table specification", RFC 952, October 1985. [RFC1001] NetBIOS Working Group, "Protocol standard for a NetBIOS service on a TCP/UDP transport: Concepts and methods", STD 19, RFC 1001, March 1987. [RFC1002] NetBIOS Working Group, "Protocol standard for a NetBIOS service on a TCP/UDP transport: Detailed specifications", STD 19, RFC 1002, March 1987. [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. [RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989. [RFC1468] Murai, J., Crispin, M., and E. van der Poel, "Japanese Character Encoding for Internet Messages", RFC 1468, June 1993. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2136] Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound, "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC 2136, April 1997. Thaler Expires January 7, 2010 [Page 15] Internet-Draft IDN Encodings July 2009 [RFC2181] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997. [RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998. [RFC2492] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., and M. Jork, "IPv6 over ATM Networks", RFC 2492, January 1999. [RFC2781] Hoffman, P. and F. Yergeau, "UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646", RFC 2781, February 2000. [RFC3490] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello, "Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3490, March 2003. [RFC3492] Costello, A., "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3492, March 2003. [RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W. Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC 3493, February 2003. [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003. [RFC4690] Klensin, J., Faltstrom, P., Karp, C., and IAB, "Review and Recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs)", RFC 4690, September 2006. [RFC4795] Aboba, B., Thaler, D., and L. Esibov, "Link-local Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)", RFC 4795, January 2007. [RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321, October 2008. [UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version 4.0.0, defined by: The Unicode Standard, Version 4.0", (Boston, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2003. ISBN 0-321-18578-1) . Thaler Expires January 7, 2010 [Page 16] Internet-Draft IDN Encodings July 2009 Author's Address Dave Thaler Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 USA Phone: +1 425 703 8835 Email: dthaler@microsoft.com Thaler Expires January 7, 2010 [Page 17]