Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-07.txt

[Paul Hoffman / IMC <[e-mail]>]

At 11:00 AM +0200 6/24/01, Dan wrote:
>How are we going to handle a draft like IDNA that does not change the
>DNS protocol and does not fulfill all protocol requirements?
>In [3] it is said that the protocol must not limit the code points
>that can be used. As IDNA does not change the protocol, it does not
>limit the protocol directely, but it does indirectely as some IDNA
>removes all upper case letters.

Nothing in IDNA "removes all upper case letters". Please point to the 
specific text of IDNA that you think does so.

>  And in [13] it says that the
>protocol must specify how characters are encoded in DNS records.
>This is not solved by IDNA - it only says how characters in names can
>be encoded.

Not true. It says exactly how they are encoded: using the ACE that 
will be picked by this WG.

>In [19] it is said that cononicalisation must be done at a single
>well-defined place in the DNS resolution process. As canonicalisation
>may result in data being destroyed, it should be required that
>if canonicalisation is done at client end the canonicalisation
>process must not destroy data in a name.

That is impossible. Canonicalizing Unicode strings will possibly 
destroy data no matter where you do it.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium