[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [idn] Comparisons of the proposals
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: RE: [idn] Comparisons of the proposals
- From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 09:03:10 -0800
- Delivery-date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 09:02:45 -0800
- Envelope-to: email@example.com
At 07:49 AM 3/21/00 -0800, Andrew Draper wrote:
>utf-5: On-the-wire protocol redefines the meaning of DNS names which have
> a well-known suffix.
>cidnuc: On-the-wire protocol redefines the meaning of DNS labels which
> have a particular form.
> > Changes to DNS protocol and resolvers
>Changes to DNS protocol and internationalisation aware resolvers
> > utf-5: None.
>utf-5: For some names DNS resolvers must append well known suffix and
> encode name in utf-5 (or the reverse). For other names resolver
> sends/decodes as is.
> > cidnuc: None.
>cidnuc: For DNS labels containing non-ASCII characters DNS resolvers
> must reencode label and prepend identifying prefix. Reverse
> process for received labels.
I would change both of these to simply "For names that are not currently
legal, must encode before resolving, and must decode tagged names coming
from a resolver." Does that match your thinking?
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium