Subject: Re: [idn] iDNS re-chartering proposal, take 2

From: Dan Oscarsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:39:47 +0100

>>For example, UDNS requires a coordinated release for at least two
>>purposes: so that name lengths can be synchronized, and so that
delegation
>>entities can
>>coordinate delegations they make as UTF-8 and ACE encoded
representations
>>of the same UCS string.

It does not. Name lengths is specified and will be supported by all
supporting UDNS.
Though some name lengths will not be possible to have in ACE, but ACE is
just
for backward compatibility. Never expect everything new to work in all
old
systems.

And there is no need for coordinated delegations. UDNS only uses one
representaion
of a label. The ACE format is always created from the UTF-8 native form.

There is no double delegation.

>
>uDNS a) is not a complete specification, and b) imposes operational
>requirements that are not viable in the existing DNS infrastructure.
>
Easy to say, but I have not seen anything to prove it.

UDNS is  a complete specification, but it does leave specification of
ACE and
how DNSSEC sorting is to be done to other RFCs. IDNA is a very
incomplete
specification - it does not solve the problem of having non-ASCII
in DNS, it just defines how to encode non-ASCII in "host names" into
an ACE.

And I do not know what operational requirements you think of.
I can start using UDNS today in my DNS server and it will work
fine.

    Dan

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 08:06:23 -0800

At 12:39 PM 10/29/2001 +0100, Dan Oscarsson wrote:
>representaion of a label. The ACE format is always created from the UTF-8 
>native form.

This means that uDNS is not useful until this broad infrastructure support 
for it.  That makes is vastly more difficult to deploy and THAT means that 
it takes much longer to become useful than does a straight ACE approach.

>ACE and how DNSSEC sorting is to be done to other RFCs. IDNA is a very
>incomplete specification - it does not solve the problem of having non-ASCII

A complete specification is one that deals with an issue completely.  It 
does not matter whether this requires one document or many.  If there are 
issues left open, then the specification is incomplete.  A reader cannot 
evaluate all the details unless all of the details are presented.

So, thank you for agreeing that the uDNS specification is incomplete.

>I can start using UDNS today in my DNS server and it will work

Thank you for stating so clearly that you are attending only to viability 
on a small scale.  Attending to broad Internet deployment and utility is a 
very different process from what you are doing.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 08:36:56 -0800

oops.  typo:

At 08:06 AM 10/29/2001 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>This means that uDNS is not useful until this

this => there is

>broad infrastructure support for it.  That makes is vastly more difficult 
>to deploy and THAT means that it takes much longer to become useful than 
>does a straight ACE approach.

d/

----------