Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-04.txt

[Harald Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 12:14 05/10/2000 +0900, Hongbo Shi wrote:
>Hi, all.
>
>From: Zita Wenzel <zita@ISI.EDU>
>Subject: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-04.txt
>Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:24:50 GMT
>
> > OLD:  [37] The protocol MUST work for all features of DNS, IPv4, and
> > IPv6.
> >
> > NEW:  [2.6] The protocol MUST work for all features of DNS, IPv4, and
> > IPv6.  The protocol MUST NOT allow an IDN to be returned to a requestor
> > that requests the IP-to-(old)-domain-name mapping service.
>
>  Maybe in the furture, the following case will exist.
>  One person who only registers the IDN, without registering the
>  (old) domain names. Then according to the suggestion above, it causes
>  the PTR record to be null. Is it alright? Is it necessary to be avoided?

A NULL PTR record would be a Bad Thing; there are 3 possible solutions I 
can think of offhand:

1) Suppress the PTR record containing the IDN. This has bad implications 
for DNSSEC, since DNSSEC signs record sets, not individual records.
2) Use a new record type (IPTR) for storing the IDN, so that old clients do 
not see it
3) Return a PTR containing an ACE. This means that DNSSEC must sign an ACE, 
and that clients will see even more meaningless names than 
"123.234.123.wcom.com" (a not-unusual style of PTR value to see now).

2 and 3 can be combined.... if we want to force the choice, or want to 
specify requirements forcing the choice, please suggest requirements text.


>  Furthermore, is it necessary to think about if "IDN only" (without
>  corresponding old domain name) exists, what will happen?
>  Maybe nothing will happen, maybe not.
>
>  I have no idea on both of them right now.
>
>Best Regards
>
>Hongbo Shi
>
>

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no