Re: [idn] WG Update

[Dan Oscarsson <Dan.Oscarsson@trab.se>]

>> I recommend modify the last line "MUST be discussed" to be
>> "MUST be provided", as to be " Case-insensitivity for non US-ASCII MUST be
>> provided in the protocol proposal"
>
>I disagree. As it happens, all of the proposals provide case-insensitivity
>for non-US-ASCII, but it is *not* a requirement. The protocol would work
>fine and would be perfectly acceptable to users without it. We should be
>clear about the difference between features that are *desirable* (in this
>case for consistency), and *required* features.

Well, I disagree to that.

It *is* a requirement that case-insensitivity shall work for all letters.
That has been the DNS standard so far. That is what people expect.
To have case-sensitive matching is not fine for everybody.

If we are not going to support case-insensivity and case preserving in
responses, then we should turn it of for ASCII too.
Either we support full backward compatibility (that includes having
case-insensitivity and case preserving in protocol for all letters),
or we kill it off for ASCII letters too.
Just because non-ASCII has not been used, does not mean that people
expect the same rules that exist for ASCII to exist for non-ASCII.
The current DNS standard has defined that case-insensitivity shall be
used and that case should be preserved in responses. We break that
if it is not done for non-ASCII letters too.

   Dan