Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-12

[Douglas Otis <[e-mail]>]

On 12/22/10 2:11 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>  Thanks for the response. Further comments below. I elided sections
>  that I think have been addressed.
>
>  On Dec 15, 2010, at 4:30 AM, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
>
>  [..]
> >
> > Yes, IDNA is not needed for Multicast DNS.
>
>  I think it would be highly unfortunate if we end up saying two
>  different flavors of DNS use different approaches to
>  internationalization. But if there are good technical reasons not to
>  use IDNA, then it would be good to state them. Perhaps the reasons
>  you already mention apply--in which case it would be helpful to state
>  that. Would you consider IDNA to exist to solve this "historical"
>  problems in DNS that don't exist in mDNS?

The IDNA patch for DNS is not a complete or without problems. Although 
RFC4795 indicates compliance with RFC1035, the latest specification 
published by Microsoft, MS-LLMNRP — v20101112
http://download.microsoft.com/download/a/e/6/ae6e4142-aa58-45c6-8dcf-a657e5900cd3/%5BMS-LLMNRP%5D.pdf
includes the following questionable statement:
,---
[RFC4795] does not specify whether names in queries are to be sent in 
UTF-8 [RFC3629] or Punycode [RFC3492]. In this LLMNR profile, a sender 
MUST send queries in UTF-8, not Punycode.
'---
Rather than making the same mistake, leave mDNS as is.

-Doug