Before you, Mark, started to confuse the issue, it was clear to
everyone (on this list) that the domain names we were trying to
internationalise were primarily the ones seen by "ordinary people".
If other domain names are (or need to be) internationalised along
with that, then that is a bonus.
By the way, your message is an excellent illustration of why
suggestions like CIDNUC and (the misnamed) UTF-5 (it's NOT a UTF)
are unacceptable suggestions: even after a decade of QP the
encoding still leaks through to the poor reader, and it's a
reencoding into ASCII that is so unique essentially to e-mail
that no ordinary programs that handle text handles that reencoding.
The same will be true for CIDNUC and (the misnamed) UTF-5,
so such proposals should not be pursued further. We've lived
through a decade of QP horror and it still haunts us (quite
needlessly, 8bit IS available) and we certainly don't need
several more decades of CIDNUC horror.
Kind regards
/kent k
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark.Andrews@nominum.com [mailto:Mark.Andrews@nominum.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 11:36 PM
> To: idn@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [idn] Proposed suggestions from Asia Pacific Top
> LevelDomain meeting
>
>
>
> >
> > <smaller>Niklas.=C5berg@=C4lvdalen-skog.se. And so on for
> the worlds
> > all</smaller>=20
>
>
> Because you could not encode the above email address in
> the DNS with then restrictions people on this list seem to
> want to put on international domain names. The IETF does
> not allow periods in interational domain name labels.
????? Are you really trying to tell us something or are you just
continuing to try to confuse people? If you want to explain
something and want me to understand, you have to put it in terms
that somebody who is not very familiar with the details of the
protocols you are talking about can understand. Note that
silly comparisons with apples and oranges DO NOT help,
nor do unexplained acronyms for various kinds of 'records'.
> Or sorry you can't a a SRV record to redirect http for
> =C4lvdalen-skog.se to a different set of boxes. The IETF
> (through the idn working group) was too short sited to
> fully internationalise the DNS, they just internationalised
> host names and underscores are not legal in hostnames.
I'm not sure what you mean by "http" in connection with "boxes".
Anyway, it appears to me that HTTP can already handle domain
names in UTF-8 without any major problems (except that there is
no normalisation nor case folding). I.e., apart from that some
operators are now actively blocking that kind of names. Given
that that change (to block) only took a few days to implement,
I guess it can only take a few days to unblock...
> e.g.
> _http._tcp.\196lvdalen-skog.se
>
> Or to put it another way IDNS will not get past the IESG
> and IETF last call unless it deals with all domain names
> and not just host names.
>
> Can you now see why I am trying to point out the distinction
> between domain names and host names. Can you also now see
> why we need to define what is a IDN and what is a IHN.
>
> Mark
> --
> Mark Andrews, Nominum Inc. / Internet Software Consortium
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET:
> Mark.Andrews@nominum.com
>