At 10:04 19/08/00, Keith Moore wrote:
>> The bottom line for IDN is simple -- MB records MUST continue
>> to work. MB records include hostnames/domainnames as a component
>> of the data element.
>
>okay, but what does "work" mean?
>
>does it mean that it must be possible for MB records to contain IDNs?
Yes. An MB record contains a left hand piece which is a system-specific
mailbox/identity and a right hand piece which is a domain-name (possibly
a host-name) and in future will need to be an IDN.
>or can the IPsec key management schema be made to work if MB records are
>constrained to contain only DNS names for now?
I do not understand the question.
I believe IDNs are (will be) kinds of DNS names.
So how is this question different from the top question ?
>does it mean that it must be possible to use the addreses
>from MB records in email? why?
Not necessarily required in a strict sense. However, it is advantageous
operationally to have this ability, for example if the MB record contains
a PGP identity. PGP identities are not necessarily an email address,
though the overwhelming majority of them are an email address, for
comparison.
Ran
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
