Subject: Re: [iucg] Distributed configuration of "private" IDNA (Re: IDNA and getnameinfo() and getaddrinfo())

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:48:41 +0200

At 03:39 17/06/2010, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>At 9:28 PM -0400 6/16/10, John C Klensin wrote:
> > > The good thing about Punycode/IDN is that it enabled DNS.  The
> >> bad thing is that suddenly any network app needs to become a
> >> DNS expert.
> >
> >Borrowing a theme from another discussion that has been going on
> >in parallel, the good thing about getnameinfo and getaddrinfo
> >are that they enable IPv6.  The bad thing is that suddenly any
> >network app needs to become a routing preferences expert.
>
>+1. Some complexity can be added along a smooth curve; other 
>complexity takes a changed mindset (and, in these cases, a changed 
>API). Wishing it weren't so is fine, but by doing so you are rapidly 
>reduced to "get off my lawn, you kids!".

+1. This is why we need to carefully consider where/how to apply the 
RFC 3439 principle of simplicity. This is implied in the way IDNA2008 
addresses IDNs. However, before engaging in any new construct that 
will consistently impact the nets in many other situations (as 
Nicolas shows it), one has to carefully agree on what IDNA2008 
actually implies or what IAB wants the IETF to consider it implies. 
This means an appropriate IETF Internet simplicity model at the 
proper common layer.
jfc