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

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

> >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?
> 
>         I consider an IDN to be a kind of DNS name.  So I'm still 
> confused by your phrasing.  In which way are "only DNS names" 
> not "IDNs" in your terminology ?  What would be an example of an
> "IDN" that is not a "DNS name" in a timeframe where IDNs exist ?

the way I'm using the terms, DNS names are pure ascii.  IDNs are not
constrained to pure ASCII.  and I try not to presume that IDNs are a 
form of DNS names.

>         I believe it is operationally necessary to have the right-hand
> portion of an MB record be an IDN, in a timeframe when IDNs exist.
>
> >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?
> 
>         Historically, in an IPsec context, I'm only aware of MB
> records where the right-hand component of the MB record was identical
> with the domain that holds that MB record.  Further investigation
> would be needed to determine whether that is a hard design requirement,
> a practical requirement, an operational necessity, or not a requirement.
> My off-the-cuff belief is that its a hard design requirement.

I think it would be unfortunate to require that email be fixed to
handle IDNs before IDNs themselves are finalized and deployed.  
This would delay the implementation of IDNs by many years. 

Keith