Re: [idn] iDNS re-chartering proposal, take 2

[Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>]

At 12:39 PM 10/29/2001 +0100, Dan Oscarsson wrote:
>And there is no need for coordinated delegations. UDNS only uses one
>representaion of a label. The ACE format is always created from the UTF-8 
>native form.

This means that uDNS is not useful until this broad infrastructure support 
for it.  That makes is vastly more difficult to deploy and THAT means that 
it takes much longer to become useful than does a straight ACE approach.


> >uDNS a) is not a complete specification, and b) imposes operational
> >requirements that are not viable in the existing DNS infrastructure.
>
>UDNS is  a complete specification, but it does leave specification of
>ACE and how DNSSEC sorting is to be done to other RFCs. IDNA is a very
>incomplete specification - it does not solve the problem of having non-ASCII
>in DNS, it just defines how to encode non-ASCII in "host names" into
>an ACE.

A complete specification is one that deals with an issue completely.  It 
does not matter whether this requires one document or many.  If there are 
issues left open, then the specification is incomplete.  A reader cannot 
evaluate all the details unless all of the details are presented.

So, thank you for agreeing that the uDNS specification is incomplete.


>And I do not know what operational requirements you think of.
>I can start using UDNS today in my DNS server and it will work
>fine.

Thank you for stating so clearly that you are attending only to viability 
on a small scale.  Attending to broad Internet deployment and utility is a 
very different process from what you are doing.

d/

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