Re: [idn] Internationalized PTR draft submitted

[Hongbo Shi <shi@goto.info.waseda.ac.jp>]

my turn? :) 

The samples Mark Davis raised are very good. 
They let me think about the mechanism of IPTR again. Thanks a lot. 
I have a new idea in the following. I haven't thought them very well yet.
Correct me, if I am wrong. 

From: Mark Davis <markdavis@ispchannel.com>
Subject: Re: [idn] Internationalized PTR draft submitted
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 20:56:37 -0700

> A couple of points.
> 
> 1. I am a bit puzzled by your example:
> 
> 4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa  IPTR  zh-tw "traditional-chinese xxx.com in utf8"
>                       IPTR  zh-cn "simplified-chinese xxx.com in utf8"
>                       IPTR  ja    "japanese xxx.com in utf8"
>                       IPTR  ko    "korean xxx.com in utf8"
> 
> Are the xxx really the same characters? Or is it more like (I will choose examples
> from ascii):

 When the "xxx" are really the same characters, who will be unfortunate? 

 I think it will be the current transport solution described in our draft, section 5.1.
                       
 In that section, we suggest that "Use UDP first, if UDP is not large enough then change 
 to TCP". Hence, the duplicated records (except "language tag") will cause a server to 
 send a response over TCP. I think whether it is necessary that a server should detect
 whether there are some duplicated records in a response packet before selecting the 
 transport protocol. If the answer is YES, the server "arrange" those duplicated records. 
 Such like
   4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa IPTR zh-tw zh-cn ja ko "xxx.com in utf8". 

> 4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa  IPTR  en "english yahoo.com in utf8"
>                       IPTR  de "german jahu.com in utf8"
>                       IPTR fr    "french iaou.com in utf8"
> 
> or even
> 
> 4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa  IPTR  en "english commerce.com in utf8"
>                       IPTR  de "german handel.com in utf8"
>                       IPTR  it    "italian commercio.com in utf8"
> 
> In any event, if they are different characters and are to be used as domain names,
> it would seem that they would need to be separately registered.
 
  Yes, I think they would need to be separately registered. 
  Fortunately "xxx.com" can save such kind of costs. ^_^
 
> 2. Perhaps you can motivate the use of this more, with a usage scenario?

  You mean the use of IPTR? If it is, I will. It is a good idea to add a 
  usage scenario to the draft. :)
 
  Best Regards.

Hongbo Shi