Edmon Chung wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric A. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For other situations, such as circumnavigating old servers which only > > support ACE-ified i18n domain names, letting a resolving/caching > > server do the convolutions makes some sense, since those boxes can > > cache the canonical UCS answer and referral data, which will help > > future queries. > > However, there is advantage for not having the nameservers do any > ACEing. It should make the phasing out of ACE faster. What is your reasoning for this? Also, would you have the client perform all recovery operations, such as retransmitting the original UTF-8 query once a problematic delegation server had been gotten around? These will still result in caches being updated but it will essentially result in each application implementing its own full-service resolver. > But we are anticipating that this be a "transitional" phase only. > Eventually, IDN/EDNS will be common place. I agree that the end-result will be an EDNS-majority, but I think it will take so long that it is better designed as a coexistence than transition. In the end, we want it to be transitional, but for the next 10+ years it will be coexistence, IMO. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
