Re: [idn] I fear I cannot use IDN in the next 10 years

[Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>]

At 06:38 PM 10/8/2001, Eric A. Hall wrote:
>  We need to come to a group consensus on the
>question of whether or not a UTF-8 namespace is necessary, desirable, or
>neither

Eric,

It is neither.

To repeat the conclusions from my presentation at the last IETF:  uDNS has 
no significant technical benefit over an ACE, but it does have a serious 
problem. It impedes transition, since it requires changes to the 
infrastructure, whereas an ACE does not.  A copy of the slides, from the 
presentation, is at:

         <http://www.brandenburg.com/presentations/iDN-choices-comments.ppt>

>The above is a comparison of UDNS' perceived cost relative to a benefit,

A more immediate problem is that uDNS is an idea, not a complete 
specification.  The current document is substantially incomplete.


>but we haven't fully discussed the benefits as of yet. Clearly, ACE has
>many costs, some of which are quite high AND ongoing

if you mean the encode/decode cost, please be serious.  remember how short 
the string is.  if you mean something else, please enumerate.

and please remember that UTF-8 is also an encoding and, therefore, carries 
an encode/decode cost.


>  * BCP18's is "Official Internet Policy" which requires support for
>    UTF-8 in all new protocols,

Please re-read section 2:

>    This document does not mandate a policy on name internationalization,
>    but requires that all protocols describe whether names are
>    internationalized or US-ASCII.

You are also neglecting to observe the fact that the DNS protocol already 
exists.  BCP18 is not mandating a change to existing protocols.


>  * Without a UTF-8 DNS interface, no new protocols or applications
>    can be developed that are UTF-8 clean. Instead, they will be
>    UTF-8 for everything EXCEPT domain names, and in some cases this
>    will be fatal.

"Fatal" is a very strong word.  Also an incorrect one.  Feel free to 
provide empirical data that supports your certitude.


>One example we have already discussed for this is
>    mapping between LDAPv3 distinguished names and DNS domain names
>    (mapping dc= RDNs to DNS). Failure to support UTF-8 is a heavy
>    blow to such efforts

Why would an encoding form affect the ability to translate between two 
different naming environment?  Encoding is for transport, rather than for 
"native" form.

A more serious limitation is the core difference between LDAP and DNS 
naming rules.

And this raises the major problem that protocol efforts, like the current 
one, must not be used to try to fix larger and unrelated problems, such as 
mapping between two, incompatible name spaces.


>  * UTF-8 is infinitely more manageable and serviceable than ACE.

What is the empiricial basis for this assertion?


>  * Finally, there are some problems that ACE cannot solve, which
>    UDNS can. The clipboard problem practically goes away,

1.  You are talking about representation inside a computer, rather than 
transport across a network.  Internet protocols pertain to transport, not 
storage.

2.  You are also wrong about this particular problem.  This choice does not 
affect the ability to clipboard a name.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464