[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-04.txt
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: RE: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-04.txt
- From: Karlsson Kent - keka <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:54:40 +0200
- Delivery-date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 05:57:11 -0700
- Envelope-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 2:38 PM
> To: Karlsson Kent - keka
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-04.txt
> > 2) The requirements document MUST NOT presuppose that there is
> > at all any "ACE" (TES) used for domain names.
> ACE itself is not a fundamental requirement. however, ACE is
> very nearly implied by other fundamental requirements, some of
> which are not in the requirements document. among these is the
> need for existing applications and protocols, some of which cannot
> deal with other than ASCII names, to be able to exchange IDNs
> both within the protocol and between applications and other
This can, at least in principle, and I would hope in practice,
be fulfilled by having a parallel (and manually chosen) ASCII
name for each IDN. Thus
"The protocol MUST NOT allow an IDN to be returned to a requestor
that requests the IP-to-(old)-domain-name mapping service."
is fine (it could return the parallel (but non-ACE) ASCII name),
"If there is only IDN exists, then DNSSEC MUST sign an ACE to
avoid an empty answer section."
is not fine at all since it sneaks in a requirement for an "ACE"/TES.
(I still don't understand the broken English there, but that is
beside my point.)