Eszett and IDNAv2 vs IDNA2008
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com
Fri Mar 13 03:25:56 CET 2009
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 03:34:03PM -0700, Erik van der Poel wrote:
>
> What about using CNAME with xd-- like this:
>
> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> ;www.strasse.de. IN A
>
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> www.strasse.de. 0 IN CNAME www.xd--strae-oqa.de.
> www.xd--strae-oqa.de. 300 IN A 78.47.200.154
Well, actually, I'd use DNAME (because it redirects what's underneath
it -- you still have to deal with the record at the same RNAME. But
modulo the new "xd--" prefix, you've just arrived at the "bundling"
proposal that many people seem to think will have to be good enough
for IDNA2008/IDNA2003 transition. All you do is establish what other
records would have matched under IDNA2003 that won't under 2008, and
include them as a policy matter in the zone you're operating, making
sure they all go to the same place. No new prefix needed.
> xd-- tells the client to do something special at display time. So does
> xn--. If xn-- gets to have special treatment, why can't xd--?
Briefly, the NS record has a well-defined semantics, and anything that
fiddles with that is, in my opinion, pretty dangerous. But like I
said, this topic is no so far off-topic for the list that I don't want
to pursue it here. (So if you need clarification on this point,
please send me a direct request off-list. I won't pursue the
explanation any more here.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list