Re: [idn] Internationalized PTR draft submitted

[Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Hongbo Shi,

I suggest that PTR is not broken and need not be fixed. I believe the IPTR
draft to be severraly broken in that you have confused the term "language"
with charset.

please explain why having a tag for a hostname's PTR record, when it is
already encoded in a charset that encompance's *all* languages, is
benifitial.

What glue do you use to ensure that the "language" tag is appropriate for
the ENCODED name. Lets start thinking UCS-2/UTF-16 here folks. When a *ACE
hostname is decoded you are going to be left with something mapable to
Unicode 3.0 not S_JIS or GB, or Big5. Although a *ACE may be able to be
partially maped back to S_JIS or GB, or Big5. When we decode an *ACE
hostname we won't know the original charset that was origionaly encoded.

please, please, PLEASE, STOP using the word LANGUAGE when you mean charset
Think about the consept of charset and how it will apply when it
covers ALL languages.

finaly, I believe that IPTR and any other technology that needs the
origional lang^H^H^Hcharset is broken in the context of i18n hostnames.

-rick

On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Hongbo Shi wrote:

> If we talk about "language" on DNS, we will encounter a problem that the 
> language is per domain name? per label? within label? In our draft there 
> are some open issues. The problem I raised before is one of them. 
> Every comment is welcome. 
>