Re: [Fwd: Re: [idn] Unicode tagging]

[James Seng <James@Seng.cc>]

Non-subscriber posting.

-------- Original Message --------
From: Brian Wellington <Brian.Wellington@nominum.com>
To: RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org>
Cc: "David R. Conrad" <David.Conrad@nominum.com>,
	Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, idn@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [idn] Unicode tagging]
In-Reply-To: <399D5139.4E74F768@nominum.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0008181522350.49283-100000@shell.nominum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [idn] Unicode tagging
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:43:23 -0400
> From: RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org>
> To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
> CC: idn@ops.ietf.org
> References: <Your message of "Fri, 18 Aug 2000 14:06:44 EDT."
> <4.3.2.7.2.20000818140608.00acbd30@avarice.inner.net>
> 
> At 14:22 18/08/00, Keith Moore wrote:
> >> Not true.  They live in MB records which need to support
> >> IDNs because the other half of an mailbox name is an IDN.
> >
> >who uses MB records anymore, anyway?
> 
> Anyone using DNSSEC to distribute user keys via KEY
> records that are associated with MB records.  In short,
> this is important for the Internet Security Architecture
> and for widespread deployment of IPsec.

(this message was just forwarded to me, so sorry if I missed something.)


KEY records are not associated with any other records.  The way a KEY
record is classified as a user key is by setting the appropriate flags
in
the KEY record's "flags" field.  I've never heard of any connection
between users' keys and MB records.

Brian