I support AMC's suggestion. Please stop the irrelevant discussion until any new draft submitted.
Kenny Huang > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Adam M. Costello > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 1:02 PM > To: IETF idn working group > Subject: [idn] internal DNS server behavior is irrelevant > > > We can stop discussing what authoritative DNS servers do internally when > deciding how to answer a query, because it's completely irrelevant. > An authoritative DNS server is already able to use whatever arbitrary > method it likes to decide how to answer queries (because it is the > authority--its answers define the namespace), and the proposed IDNA does > nothing to change that. > > The only relevant issue is how *other* machines (DNS caching servers and > end hosts) decide whether two names are the same. This is the algorithm > that is used to decide whether a query can be answered from the cache, > or whether a link has already been visited, or whether the name used > to contact a web server matches the SSL certificate presented by that > server. Because this matching algorithm is performed locally (without > doing a DNS lookup) it must be well-known and standard. > > Having authoritative name servers do extended matching internally can > confuse applications (because they effectively create alternate names > for servers that the servers themselves might not recognize--think > virtual web hosts). Getting around this problem would apparently > entail extending the application servers inside the zone to understand > the additional matching. Each zone can decide whether it's worth the > trouble to go down that road. But that is all orthogonal to IDNA. > > To reiterate: We can stop discussing localized matching rules, because > IDNA does nothing to encourage or prevent them. The relevant issue is > the single well-known matching rule. Can we go ahead with the one in > IDNA, or do we need to prohibit simplified code points while the TC/SC > issue is settled (I hope not)? > > AMC
