Re: IDNA applicability: per RR/Class or DNS-wide (was: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-idna-08.txt)

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