At 10:04 02/10/2000 +0800, James Seng wrote:
>OLD:
>< These services exist, conceptually, at the Application/Resolver
> > interface, NOT at the DNS-service interface. This document attempts to
>< set requirements for an equivalent of the "used services" given above,
>< where "hostname" is replaced by "Internationalized Domain Name". This
>< doesn't preclude the fact that IDN should work with any kind of DNS
>< queries. IDN is a new service. Since existing protocols like SMTP or
>< HTTP use the old service, it is a matter of great concern how the new
>< and old services work together, and how other protocols can take
>< advantage of the new service.
>
>I think what you're trying to say is the following:
>
>These services primarily are features of the interface between the
>Application and Resolver, not at the "DNS service" interface above.
> > This document attempts to set requirements for a overall system for
*****
> > using internationalized names instead of ASCII hostnames for all of
> > the above services,
*****
no, this is what the sentence above is trying to NOT say; the concept of
using internationalized names instead of ASCII hostnames with the *present*
service is something we try NOT to say.
It tries to say that IDN is a NEW service.
The difference is that if the service is new, it is 100% clear that a
client must know whether he is using the new or the old service. Getting
"new" answers is something the client MUST expect if he is using the "new"
service.
> as well as the noting the implications for necessary
> > support in the DNS service interface, system infrastructure, and
> > user interfaces. This overall system is called IDN (Internationalied
> > Domain Names) in this document. Since existing applications use
> > the existing infrastructure, interoperability of existing DNS
> > with IDN, and support for forward migration, is of great concern.
--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
