Subject: RE: [idn] pool deadline imminent

From: "Paul V. Mockapetris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:49:00 -0700

Hi,

I believe UTF8 solutions deserve consideration as well.

paul

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:21:57 +0200

> I believe UTF8 solutions deserve consideration as well.

Please explain what you mean by UTF8 solutions?

  paf

---

From: "Paul V. Mockapetris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:21:59 -0700

>Please explain what you mean by UTF8 solutions?

Patrik, Sorry a sentence got lost.

I think of this issue from a broader base than just IDN.  My opinion is 
that we need three efforts:

1. A standard for the use of pure binary/8 bit clean labels (and of course 
content) in the DNS.  This will require changes.  (for example, the ASCII 
matching rules)  A requirement for pure binary APIs should be articulated, 
even if the APIs themselves are not.  BCPs so that ISPs et al don't hurt 
themselves with shell scripts may be desirable.

2. Standards preparing, matching, canonicalizing UTF8 at the edge of the 
DNS before it is carried in 8 bit clean DNS.

3 Standards for whatever encodings (to build APIs) are wanted by those that 
don't want 8 bit clean interfaces.

The intent is that these are layered, so that those that want to bypass 
encodings and go 8 bit clean can do so.  The UTF8 standards should not be 
intended for all DNS labels; for example if some application wants to use 
DNA sequences as four base pairs per byte, that should be OK.

I'm really only an advocate of the first two, the third step is to make 
this politically palatable
to those that think UTF8, 8 bit clean, and some rules at the edges aren't 
enough.

UDNS seems the closest, although there are things I would change.

paul