Re: [dnsext] we need help to make names the same, was draft-yao-dnsext-identical-resolution-02 comment

"Vaggelis Segredakis" <segred@ics.forth.gr> Tue, 22 February 2011 13:41 UTC

Return-Path: <segred@ics.forth.gr>
X-Original-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 792E93A68D6 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 05:41:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.69
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.69 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cJA1VoSxWGGB for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 05:41:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgate.ics.forth.gr (mailgate.ics.forth.gr [139.91.1.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0EC3A6812 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 05:41:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from av1.ics.forth.gr (av1-in.ics.forth.gr [139.91.1.71]) by mailgate.ics.forth.gr (8.14.3/ICS-FORTH/V10-1.8-GATE) with ESMTP id p1MDfv1s025909; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:41:59 +0200 (EET)
X-AuditID: 8b5b9d47-b7c88ae0000076fe-64-4d63bd256c57
Received: from enigma.ics.forth.gr (webmail.ics.forth.gr [139.91.1.30]) by av1.ics.forth.gr (SMTP Outbound / FORTH / ICS) with SMTP id 93.BC.30462.52DB36D4; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:41:57 +0200 (EET)
Received: from Thanatos (thanatos.ics.forth.gr [139.91.88.160]) (authenticated bits=0) by enigma.ics.forth.gr (8.14.3//ICS-FORTH/V10.3.0C-EXTNULL-SSL-SASL) with ESMTP id p1MDftmS011121 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:41:56 +0200
X-ICS-AUTH-INFO: Authenticated user: segred at ics.forth.gr
From: Vaggelis Segredakis <segred@ics.forth.gr>
To: 'Eric Brunner-Williams' <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
References: <20110216073338.7251.qmail@joyce.lan> <F21692535B1A478F95D9E3AA048E8037@ics.forth.gr> <20110216165921.GW96213@shinkuro.com> <3B90ED2E-980D-4B01-889F-447D66D0B58D@insensate.co.uk> <20110216174011.GZ96213@shinkuro.com> <20110218143653.GC84482@bikeshed.isc.org> <20110218151209.GF66684@shinkuro.com> <4D5EEE09.4080405@dougbarton.us> <20110218222950.GL74065@shinkuro.com> <4D5EF74C.9080603@dougbarton.us><20110218230905.GN74065@shinkuro.com> <4D5F270F.20401@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:40:33 +0200
Message-ID: <199C7B2B4228461FB024E59A990DB46D@ics.forth.gr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <4D5F270F.20401@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994
Thread-Index: AcvP2okX4bWgtcrnQdWmwo9h1lgOeACundnQ
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAARdxlnE=
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 4D63BD25.002 on mailgate : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000
X-ICS-JCHK-SCL: Ham
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] we need help to make names the same, was draft-yao-dnsext-identical-resolution-02 comment
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 13:41:25 -0000

Hi Eric,

>err, well, yes in principle, and no in practice. that is, a series of 
>pick-according-to-taste-or-belief{blunders, errors, accidents, acts of 
>genius} has lead to some specific use cases. han sc/tc. greek tonos. 
>failing to solve leads to unintended consequences.

I couldn't agree more with your last sentence above. Before landing in this
WG with this issue I tried to explain the situation back when the first
protocol of IDNs was designed. The belief then that a protocol should not
take into consideration specific issues but rather stick to the "domains are
not words" motto brought us all ten years later to the point of discussing
adding rr types in DNS, rather than designing correctly a translating
application-layer protocol right from the beginning, with formatting data
etc to solve all problems.

Best,

Vaggelis Segredakis