Re: Matching and comparison

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 13:55 20.01.00 +0800, James Seng wrote:
>Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
> > By tagging internationalized names. This is now moving from requirements to
> > protocol. But it would be easy to do in a backwards compatible way for some
> > protocols.
>
>In a casual conversation with Paul Vixie last year, he suggested we can
>consider introducing a new RCODE in the DNS packet to 'tag' it as a
>multilingual request. This will differential it from the the normal request.
>
>It is an idea which the implementor can consider when they do their
>implementation altho it certainly does not make sense to introduce it in the
>requirement document.

the protocol specifier, not the implementor - RCODEs are protocol.

>This brings me to a point which no one seem to discuss. Should we allow
>modification to RFC1035? If yes, what are the requirements?

Anything we do modifies RFC 1035 to some extent.
If we can modify it only by extension, that's a Good Thing.

> > Wrong question: mycompany.com isn't internationalized. The question should
> > by "Does it make sense to have Dürst.com be different than dürst.com?" I
> > believe it does if it doesn't affect the case-insensitivity of any
> > non-internationalized names.
>
>If canonialisation is not done, then
>
>Dürst.com       IN      DNAME   dürst.com
>DüRst.com       IN      DNAME   dürst.com
>...<all permuntation>
>DüRST.COM       IN      DNAME   dürst.com
>
>Cool!

For Dürst.com, this is 2^5-1 = 31 DNAMEs.
For Smĝrgċsbord.com, this is 2^11-1 = 2047 DNAMEs.

A DNAME also adds a round trip.
"Cool" isn't exactly my preferred term for that.....but it's consistent.

                   Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no