Re: [idn] WG last call summary

["Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>]

Keith Moore wrote:

> I doubt we'd reach consensus on that either, since many of us suspect
> that the following statement is closer to the truth:
> 
>     The on-the-wire encoding of IDNs is irrelevant; what matters is the
>     behavior experienced by users.

Obviously. It's a question of getting there, however.

The final, ultimate argument in this logic-chain is that native
representation of the data in the protocol message is the ultimate design
solution, since it means less implementation work, fewer errors introduced
by wayward codecs, highest reusability by other services, etc. Managed
facades are not long-term solutions to anything, and in fact, tend to
introduce as many problems as they try to fix.

Obviously, direct encapsulation is harder with some services than others.
That doesn't mean that direct encapsulation should not be the ultimate
design target, it only means that some protocols will have to use a patch
(like IDNA) until they can either be extended or replaced.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/