Re: [idn] NSI whitepaper on ML Resolution

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

From: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [idn] NSI whitepaper on ML Resolution
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:18:48 -0800

> No, they will according to the paper primarilly use ACE, and secondly 
> use UTF-8, and have a CNAME from the UTF-8 to the ACE.
> 
> I have talked orally with VGRS people here in San Diego, and pointed 
> out the difference from the report we got from the Protocol Design 
> Team at the IDN wg meeting. I further said that using CNAME is 
> probably not a good thing.

I think CNAME is not good either. There are too many restrictions on the 
aliases. And that cause alias can't be used as well as the canonical name
So I think at least, current usage of CNAME is not enough to be used in 
this way, I think. And I also think why we need to relate one domain name 
to another. I mean why not just let one name to equal to another? Such as, 

  A   "EQUAL TO"  B

Maybe I should explain what I want to say more clearly. I mean maybe in the 
future, a new relation among the names will be required,  and maybe it will
be the "=". Then there is no more primary name, secondary name. 
# I don't mean to use inverse query here. 

The thinking above just a thinking at all, not a proposal or suggestion.  

Thanks a lot! 

Hongbo