RE: [idn] IURL vs URL, IDNS name vs DNS name

[Jonathan Rosenne <rosenne@qsm.co.il>]

I didn't say simple.

Tagging could be done based on the last element, e.g. .com is ASCII, .%com
is encoded. If % cannot be used, maybe something like .icom.

ASCII is not going to disappear. BCDIC (the 6 bit code, precursor to EBCDIC)
is still around.

Jony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John C Klensin [mailto:klensin@jck.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 7:42 PM
> To: Jonathan Rosenne
> Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [idn] IURL vs URL, IDNS name vs DNS name
>
>
>
>
> --On Friday, 11 February, 2000 19:00 +0200 Jonathan Rosenne
> <rosenne@qsm.co.il> wrote:
>
> >
> > The UCS could be encoded using A-Z 0-9. On average each
> > non-ASCII character would require 3 to 4 characters. All we
> > need to change is to allow longer names in DNS and to provide
> > a viewer which decodes these creatures back to UCS or the
> > local code page.
>
> Sure.  As long as you know which strings to decode and which
> ones are complete as they appear (unless you think ASCII is
> going to disappear overnight).  And, as soon as you say things
> like "local code page", you need even more tagging.  "longer
> names" also have some technical implications, especially if one
> likes the speed to UDP transactions, rather than forcing more
> and more things toward TCP.  Other than that...
>
> Really, this isn't that simple.
>
>     john
>
>
>