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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850
