[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] IDNA applicability: per RR/Class or DNS-wide (was: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-idna-08.txt)
At 10:38 AM 6/11/2002 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
Should the applicability of IDNA in the DNS context, and
the xxx-prep procedures to be used with it, be specified
on a per-RR (and per-Class) basis?
(i) The DNS now has different rules for valid label forms and
parameters for different RR types (e.g., "A", "MX", etc., are
recommended to contain only LDH names, while "SRV" uses names
that are in ASCII but violation LDN norms) and the core DNS
specification clearly anticipates an even broader range of
names/ labels. IDNA should recognize this and anticipate the
use of different "foo-prep" profiles of stringprep with
different RR types and/or classes, rather than forcing
everything into a "nameprep" model.
Or IDNA should focus only on solving the URL/mail naming issue and defer
the rest. The deferral will not be -- cannot be and has not been --
entirely ignoring the future effort for other aspects of RR domain label
specification. But it need not be required to solve the whole problem for
everyone for ever.
(ii) It is unreasonable and undesirable for IDNA to specify
behavior for Classes and RRs not yet invented. Constraints like
that are nothing but an invitation to trouble.
Suggested remedies:
damn.
i think i agree with your suggestions, though #3 is a bit discomfiting.
This model is just much cleaner. It makes IDNA more flexible
for other uses and protocols. ...
This work is long overdue.
grrrr. mumble. i agree. grrrr.
d/
----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dave@tribalwise.com>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850