Re: IDNA: is the specification proper, adequate, and complete? (was: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-idna-08.txt)
"Adam M. Costello" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.idn |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
John C Klensin <[email protected]> wrote: > But, if we are ever going to be able to extend the DNS in ways that > impact the name space, we must avoid setting a standard that applies > to those spaces where we haven't ventured. Any future spec that defines a new RR type or a new class (or any new region) can stipulate that IDNA does not apply there. Yes, people are reluctant to make breaks like that, and they should be. They should do it only if there is a compelling reason. If we set the default the other way, so that future RR types and classes need to explicitly adopt IDNA, we might encourage unnecessary disharmony. AMC