Re: [idn] Re: dichotomies

["JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>]

(I will correct Erik's "xn--s" proposed notation into "xs--" not to create 
havoc in punycode)

One of the reason why I disagreed with IDNA is it creates a possibly 
conflicting left-to-right hierarchy while the DNS hierarchy is 
right-to-left. Erik's proposition makes a lot of sense. But it means that a 
label at the same time:
- belongs to a DNS zone
- belongs to a zone of encoding (ascii, punycode, his punysecure, new 
versions, tables, other transcoding, etc. )
- may belong to a zone of encoding different from the zone of encoding of 
other labels (ex.: "xn--abc.xs-def.tld").

This does not simplify understanding, management, security. Why not to just 
use DNS zones? I have not yet understood why it was opposed. IMHO the 
future of ML.ML names are in the form "name2.name.xx--chicom.com" where 
"xx-nn.com" will print as ".com" in Chinese and name, name2 etc. will all 
have to use codes from the Chinese Table of ".com".

jfc

At 20:15 27/02/2005, Erik van der Poel wrote:
> Erik van der Poel wrote:
> > Another bifurcation that could be considered somewhat analogous is that 
> > of http vs https. We might even want to consider bringing the topic of 
> > security into the ACE prefix discussion. One could imagine a world where 
> > two different ACE prefixes co-exist, one new prefix for "secure" domain 
> > labels, the other (old) prefix for less secure labels.
>
> Sorry, I forgot to say that a Web site would choose the new secure ACE 
> prefix when they use https. In fact, they would make that choice for 
> similar reasons, i.e. to allow the user agent to distinguish this site 
> from a less secure one, similar to Mozilla's current choice of using the 
> padlock icon and a different color near the URI at the top for https.
>
> Erik