Re: [nfsv4] Going forward on I18N in RFC3530 bis

["J. Bruce Fields" <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 02:39:24PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 14:06 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:48:44AM -0400, [e-mail] wrote:
> > > Dave,
> > > 
> > > I reviewed the i18n material in -04 (Section 12).  it looks fairly
> > > good, but the details are now beyond my level of i18n expertise.  I
> > > suggest that we get a real i18n expert to review this section in the
> > > next version of the draft - I have a couple of candidate reviewers in
> > > mind.  Many thanks for the extensive effort that has clearly gone into
> > > this.
> > > 
> > > I have one basic disagreement that should not come as a surprise ;-)
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > My current view of A-labels vs. U-labels is that I'm going to (try to)
> > > insist on no A-labels, *unless* there is important "running code" that
> > > depends on A-labels on the wire and that needs to be grandfathered.
> > 
> > Last time I checked, the linux referral code would only follow a
> > referral if it was an A-label:
> > 
> > 	http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/current/msg07863.html
> > 
> > That may have changed.  However, it wouldn't be surprising if it were
> > common behavior to pass the referral name directly to non-idn-aware dns
> > interfaces...
> 
> The advantage of scripting is that you can easily change things when
> they don't work:
> 
> getent ahostsv4 bücher.com | awk '/STREAM/ { print $1; }'
> 82.98.86.165

OK, good.

What's the deal with Solaris?

--b.