Re: [idn] RE: An idn protocol for consideration in making the requirements

[bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich)]

I agree with Kent on this. UTF-8 is it.

Bill Semich

At 08:18 PM 2/3/00 +0100, Karlsson Kent - keka wrote: 
>>>>
> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: Paul Hoffman / IMC [<mailto:phoffman@imc.org>mailto:phoffman@imc.org] 
> ... 
> > <<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-idn-cidnuc-00.txt>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-idn-cidnuc-00.txt>.  
>
> |... 
> |2.5 Base32 
> | 
> |In order to encode non-ASCII characters in DNS-compatible domain parts, 
> |they must be converted into legal characters. This is done with Base32 
> |encoding, described here. 
> | 
> |Table 3 shows the mapping between input bits and output characters in 
> |Base32. Design note: the digits used in Base32 are "2" through "8" ("8" 
> |... 
>
> Oh, no!  Not Q-P/BASE64/UTF-7 all over again.  Fortunately UTF-7 never 
> became popular, but Q-P still haunts us after a decade.  For my part, 
> I will not support any new/special/extra encoding for IDN. 
>
> Can we please learn from past mistakes and NOT do a "Q-P" blunder again. 
>
> UTF-8 as-is is backwards compatible with ASCII.  Is there any specific 
> reason to beleive that any DNS equipment (software) that is not ONLY 
> collecting dust would misbehave badly because of UTF-8 (beyond "not found", 
> which may be tolarable for a while)? 
>
> Kind regards 
> /kent k 
<<<<



Bill Semich
President and Founder
.NU Domain Ltd
http://whats.nu
bill@mail.nic.nu