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

[Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>]

> >> 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 ?

to put it in a different way, will it be operationally necessary
to use MB records which contain IDNs, in order to use IPsec with
IDNs?  or would it be possible for those MB records to contain
only DNS names?

does the domain of the email address in an MB record used for 
IPsec necessarily have anything to do with the domain of the
record itself?  or (like the addresses in SOA records) can the
two domains be different?

Keith