Classify Unicode code points before admitting them to an IDNA label

Use this document to resolve one bounded operational decision: Classify Unicode code points before admitting them to an IDNA label. Only the official source and traced locations below supply facts. Confirm applicability before acting.

Source fact:

The official RFC 5892 — The Unicode Code Points and Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA) from RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force supports the following bounded statements:

• IDNA2008 assigns each Unicode code point one derived property: PVALID, CONTEXTJ, CONTEXTO, DISALLOWED, or UNASSIGNED. The research record locates this support at Section 1 (Introduction).
• The property derivation applies the category rules in order, and the first matching rule determines the code point’s property. The research record locates this support at Section 2 (Category Definitions Used to Calculate Derived Property Value).
• Unassigned code points in Unicode general category Cn are classified UNASSIGNED unless an earlier rule, such as noncharacter handling, applies. The research record locates this support at Section 2.10 (Unassigned Code Points).

Do not import neighboring assumptions into the source record. The supported task is a scoped comparison involving authoritative zones, delegations, resolvers, caches, record owners, and the clients that consume the resulting answers and the conditions the source actually describes.

What the source does not establish

This RFC evidence supports only the named DNS protocol decision; it does not prove Windows implementation support or a safe production configuration. It does not establish a deployment’s current state, authorize a production change, prove compliance, or show that Windows DNS roles, Active Directory-integrated data, forwarding paths, time, routing, firewalls, and registrar or registry state are healthy. Documented options are review inputs, not universal mandates.

Applicability questions

• For source statement 1 at Section 1 (Introduction), which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?
• For source statement 2 at Section 2 (Category Definitions Used to Calculate Derived Property Value), which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?
• For source statement 3 at Section 2.10 (Unassigned Code Points), which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?
• Within authoritative zones, delegations, resolvers, caches, record owners, and the clients that consume the resulting answers, which versions, roles, and configuration states define the review population?
• Could Windows DNS roles, Active Directory-integrated data, forwarding paths, time, routing, firewalls, and registrar or registry state invalidate the test, hide a failure, or change applicability?
• Who owns the decision, and which observation requires stopping, escalation, or rollback?

DSE recommendation:

DSE recommends using the cited source as the evidence anchor for this decision. Use a two-person review for the source interpretation and the resulting operational decision. Record the source location, examined part of authoritative zones, delegations, resolvers, caches, record owners, and the clients that consume the resulting answers, observed and expected states, owner, and reason for deviation.

For an approved change, define prerequisites, a limited test path, success and stop conditions, monitoring, and rollback. Check Windows DNS roles, Active Directory-integrated data, forwarding paths, time, routing, firewalls, and registrar or registry state in design order. Protect credentials, keys, recovery material, personal data, and sensitive topology in evidence.

Verification and evidence

Tie each conclusion back to Section 1 (Introduction); Section 2 (Category Definitions Used to Calculate Derived Property Value); Section 2.10 (Unassigned Code Points) and to observable material such as zone data, packet captures, query transcripts, delegation checks, resolver configuration, and negative-answer behavior. Preserve provenance and stable identifiers without copying secrets into the evidence set.

Record the decision even when no change is made, including uncertainty and the next trigger. Use safe testing conditions for disruptive work, preserve rollback proof, and revisit the conclusion after relevant platform, dependency, vendor, or ownership changes.

Official references

• RFC 5892 — The Unicode Code Points and Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA) — RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force