[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] Suggested clarifications of the IDN requirements doc
At 11:12 09/08/2000 -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> The proposed new text above is far too limiting.
I was hoping to probe the consensus on that.
>
>
> For example, it is also important to also be able to map an IDN
>to an MB record (for key management reasons; see RFC-2230; RFC-2230
>is supported in BIND and in more than 1 IPsec implementation, btw).
>
> For IDN to be really useful, it needs to fully support all
>current DNS operations and mappings. If we don't require this,
>the net result might be that IDN names are some sort of 2nd-class
>component of the overall DNS, whereas we need for IDN names to be normal,
>universally supported, 1st class components of the overall DNS.
I am not sure about that. An architecture that treated IDN as a new layer
of abstraction on top of DNS names has some attractive features.
> We should retain the original text, except that it would be
>prudent to add to the original text this one sentence from Harald:
>
> "The protocol MUST NOT allow an IDN to be returned to a requestor
> that requests the IP-to-(old)-domain-name mapping service."
>
>That one sentence helps clarify the requirement that we don't break
>existing deployed systems when IDN is deployed.
I wonder: do we really have the requirement to map from IP address to IDN name?
This requirement is particularly complex to meet, I think; if we require to
map both to meaningful IDN names and meaningful hostnames, we invite
increased complexity in this space.
Harald
--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no