Re: [idn] Document Status?

["Adam M. Costello" <idn.amc+0@nicemice.net.RemoveThisWord>]

John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com> wrote:

> > The phrase "LDH name" or "LDH label" appears nowhere in the
> > document, so let's not introduce it now.  Let's say "ASCII names".
>
> "ASCII names" doesn't quite do it either: if you want to be precise,
> probably the right thing is to refer to the definition.  E.g., "Just
> as has been the case with the 'preferred syntax' of the DNS
> specification [RFC1035, Section 2.3.1]",...

I think "ASCII names" is sufficient.  Zone administrators have had the
ability to impose additional restrictions on all ASCII names, both ASCII
names that use the preferred syntax and ASCII names that don't use the
preferred syntax.

> > Which protocols are not impacted?  Recently you were saying how
> > important it is for DNS update protocols to have distinct return
> > codes for "invalid name" versus "inadmissible name", so this part of
> > the DNS protocol *would* be impacted by per-zone name restrictions.
>
> If the IDNA spec has any impact on any [other] DNS-related protocol,
> it falls outside the WG's scope.

True, but irrelevant.  The impact in question is the impact of
restrictions imposed by zone administrators, not the impact of IDNA.
Those restrictions are independent of IDNA.  IDNA is not creating a new
power for zone administrators, they have always had this power to impose
additional restrictions.

AMC