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

[RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org>]

At 10:04 19/08/00, Keith Moore wrote:
>> The bottom line for IDN is simple -- MB records MUST continue
>> to work.  MB records include hostnames/domainnames as a component
>> of the data element.
>
>okay, but what does "work" mean?  
>
>does it mean that it must be possible for MB records to contain IDNs?

Yes.  An MB record contains a left hand piece which is a system-specific
mailbox/identity and a right hand piece which is a domain-name (possibly 
a host-name) and in future will need to be an IDN.

>or can the IPsec key management schema be made to work if MB records are 
>constrained to contain only DNS names for now?

I do not understand the question.
I believe IDNs are (will be) kinds of DNS names.  
So how is this question different from the top question ?

>does it mean that it must be possible to use the addreses 
>from MB records in email?  why?

Not necessarily required in a strict sense.  However, it is advantageous 
operationally to have this ability, for example if the MB record contains 
a PGP identity.  PGP identities are not necessarily an email address,
though the overwhelming majority of them are an email address, for
comparison.

Ran
rja@inet.org