Re: Just send UTF-8 with nameprep (was: RE: [idn]Reality Check)

[Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>]

Hello John,

I read your Internet Draft proposing a new class, and
it looked very good to me. I'll send you a few detail comments
separately later.

I don't want to disagree with your conclusion, but I'm not
sure about the premise (that we need the original spelling),
so I didn't get into the details of what would follow.

Regards,   Martin.

At 04:55 01/07/24 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:


>--On Tuesday, 24 July, 2001 15:40 +0900 Martin Duerst
><duerst@w3.org> wrote:
>
> > Doing nameprep during operation on the server side is still a
> > bad idea. If we really need the original spelling of the name
> > (which I'm not sure we do), a new RR may be quite a bit better.
>
>Martin,
>
>It was trying to think through an approach based on a new RR
>that brought me to the conclusion that, if one went down that
>path, a whole new class would be needed.   Please work the cases
>yourself, remembering the various issues raised by CNAME, MX,
>and PTR RRs that might or might not have IDN values (targets)
>and see if you come to the same conclusion.
>
>     john
>