>> I agree the two sentences should say the same thing. Don't feel >> strongly about the wording since the way UTF->punycode works is the >> same for all domain names everywhere. > > My point is that the citation is essentially specifying a functional > interface and, therefore, needs to be a highly precise reference into the > specific function(s) to be incorporated into DKIM.
It wouldn't hurt, but since there is exactly one (1) standard specified way to encode IDNs in the DNS, there'd be no ambiguity even if the DKIM spec had said nothing at all about IDNs. Encoding IDNs as punycode is like encoding text domains in ASCII. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
