Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-idna-08.txt

Adam M. Costello wrote:

>That's not what we're doing.  In data intended for machine consumption
>(protocol messages, function arguments, machine-readable file formats,
>etc) we are insisting that domain names continue to be ASCII-only;
>non-ASCII domain names may appear only where they are explicitly invited
>by new protocols/interfaces/formats (or new versions of old ones).
>
>What's bad is if old software and new software both accept the same
>things, but behave differently.  That's the situation we're afraid of
>with 8-bit domain names in DNS.  Existing DNS servers already accept
>8-bit names in queries.  If we were to declare that such queries must
>now be handled differently, we'd create interoperability problems.


But domain names in use today are not ASCII-only. I know at least
two DNS servers serving names using UTF-8 (Microsofts and .NU-bind).
IDNA will change how things are handle. Applications that before
sent UTF-8 will now send ACE-names breaking what worked before.
This creates interoperability problems.
It will force changes in DNS servers, despite IDNA saying that
no changes are needed in DNS servers. The .Nu-bind and Microsoft
servers will have to be changed so they can both recognise the
old native UTF-8 names and the new ACE-names, for the same name.

So you see, IDNA will break the current handling of non-ASCII
names in DNS. As things will break, why not standardise the
usage of non-ASCII in domain names. This would result in
some servers breaking, but will give better stability for the future.

   Dan