Re: [idn] Suggested clarifications of the IDN requirementsdocument

[Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>]

At 7:34 AM -0700 8/9/00, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>[2.5] The DNS protocol (the packet formats that go on the wire) MUST NOT
>limit the codepoints that can be used.
>A service defined on top of the DNS, for instance the IDN-to-Address function,
>MAY limit the codepoints that can be used.
>The service description MUST describe what limitations are imposed.

Agree.

>[4] The protocol MUST NOT require that current cache servers be modified
>to support IDN. If a cache server can have additional functionality to
>support IDN better, this additional functionality MUST NOT cause problems
>for resolving current domain names.

Agree.

>-------------
>[18] The protocol SHOULD NOT place any restrictions on the
>application service layer. It SHOULD only specify changes in the DNS
>service layer and within the DNS itself.
>
>Suggest to delete this requirement.

Strongly agree.

>-------------
>[37] The protocol MUST work for all features of DNS, IPv4, and IPv6.
>
>Change to:
>
>[37] The protocol MUST support the following operations:
>- Mapping an IDN to IPv4 addresses
>- Mapping an IDN to IPv6 addresses
>- Mapping an IDN to an MX record
>The protocol SHOULD support the following operations:
>- Mapping an IPv4 address to an IDN
>- Mapping an IPv6 address to an IDN
>The protocol MAY support other operations.
>The protocol MUST NOT allow an IDN to be returned to a requester
>that requests the IP-to-(old)-domain-name mapping service.

I agree with Ran that this could make IDNs second-class names.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium