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

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

From: Karlsson Kent - keka <keka@im.se>
Subject: RE: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-04.txt
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 12:52:09 +0200 

> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hongbo Shi [mailto:shi@goto.info.waseda.ac.jp]
> ...
> > > > > 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.
> > 
> > NEWER: [2.6] The protocol MUST work for all freatures of DNS, IPv4, and
> IPv6.
> >        The protocol MUST NOT allow an IDN to be returned to a reauestor
> that
> >        requests the IP-to-(old)-domain-name mapping service. If there is
> only
> >        IDN exists, then DNSSEC MUST sign an ACE to avoid an empty answer 
> >        section. [RFC2535]
> 
> I'm not sure I understand the last sentence there; the English
> is too broken. However,

  Sorry for the English. It is my current best effort. :P
    
> 1) The term "ACE" is not (and should not be) defined in the
>    requirements doc. There is now the term "TES" ("Transfer
>    Encoding Syntax"), which is consistent with the terms used
>    in UTR 17.
>
> 2) The requirements document MUST NOT presuppose that there is 
>    at all any "ACE" (TES) used for domain names.  It does not
>    so far, and must not begin to do so.

  I am not quite sure what should be defined in the requirements 
  doc. I just want to say if following the current defination of the
  requirements, the PTR RR will be NULL when only the IDN exist. It 
  is not a good thing, right? According to Harald's solution that 
  DNSSEC MUST sign an ACE, I think the problem can be resloved simply 
  and reasonably. Moreover, I think it is obvious that using ACE or TES 
  or something others are not the main purpose of Harald's solution. 
  The main purpose is to use the DNSSEC. Honestly, I don't know how 
  to express this thinking exactly and without any misunderstanding, 
  though the problem is indicated and the solution has been suggested. 
  Please correct the expression about the requirements. 
  
From: Karlsson Kent - keka <keka@im.se>
Subject: RE: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-04.txt 
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:54:40 +0200 

> > 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
> > protocols.
> 
> 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."

  First, I think it is impossible to restrict a parallel ASCII name for each 
  IDN or for each set of IDNs. You can't restrict the domains of the overall 
  DNS tree. 
  Secondly, I think this usage will cause the exhaustion of the current
  ASCII domain name? Furthermore, a amoung of meanless ASCII domain names
  will exist. 
  Hence, I disagree too.

Best Regards

Hongbo Shi