Eszett and IDNAv2 vs IDNA2008

Erik van der Poel erikv at
Thu Mar 12 19:13:55 CET 2009

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:27:54AM -0700, Erik van der Poel wrote:
>> I realize that John asked us all to focus on the drafts, but, frankly,
>> I don't see much consensus on the mapping issue yet, so I still think
>> it is better to explore all possibilities.
> You seem to think that deploying a new RRTYPE with unusual additional
> processing is a "possibility".  If the goal is deployment in a
> reasonable time, it's not.  We can certainly get the RRTYPE, but
> additional processing quirks make this all more complicated and quite
> a bit more serious for a DNS server.  I think you should expect
> universal deployment of DNSSEC _and_ IPv6 prior to this scheme being
> widely-enough adopted to be really useful.  That's why John thinks
> it's a distraction; I have to agree.

I didn't say anything about a new RRTYPE. I suggested a convention in
authority names to indicate a display preference. There may well be
reasons not to have so many different authority names. (I.e. one
authority name per name-with-display-preference.)

You and John may call this a "distraction". Others might call it
"considering all possibilities".


More information about the Idna-update mailing list