Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-idna-10.txt

> There are already profiles described for iSCSI names and Kerberos realms.
> 

Correct me if I am wrong, ut I didn't think they were going to use IDNA; 
neither iSCSI names or kerberos realms are domain names (they have
different syntactic restrictions as far as I knpw) and IDNA is
about domain names. Thus they might use punycode if they need an
ASCII encoding, but not IDNA.

> Requiring new codecs for new profiles is all cost and zero benefit. What
> possible value is there in forcing applications to define new codecs with
> different outputs for their alternative names?

The "codec" is punycode, right?
If not, what is your definition of "codec"?

   Erik