Re: [idn] proposals and deadlines

["Edmon" <edmon@neteka.com>]

From: "Adam M. Costello" <amc@cs.berkeley.edu>
> This looks like it would work, but if I'm writing a resolver, and I'm
> supposed to implement ACE-encode, ACE-decode, and EDNS, I'm probably
> going to think to myself, "Hmmm, if I just pretend that the EDNS lookup
> always fails, then I won't have to bother implementing EDNS, and the
> application will never know the difference."
>

But if I am writing a DNS server, I'm probably going to think to myself,
"hmmm, if I pretend that ACE names will be answered by LDH records anyway
(which will be entered into by the zone administrator), then I won't have to
bother implementing ACE conversion and applications will never know the
difference.  I only need to make sure master files could be in UTF8 and I
can answer IDN/EDNS"

And if I am writing an http server (given that http will later support IDN
based on some of the works of this WG), I'm probably going to think to
myself... "hmmm, if I pretend that I dont know ACE and let the information
(ACE form) leak to the users and just implement UTF8, then I wont have to
bother implementing ACE conversion, and the application will never know the
difference."

These in turn (especially ACE leakage) would encourage the
application/resolver developer to eventually implement EDNS.

Edmon