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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf