> There are already profiles described for iSCSI names and Kerberos realms. >
Correct me if I am wrong, ut I didn't think they were going to use IDNA; neither iSCSI names or kerberos realms are domain names (they have different syntactic restrictions as far as I knpw) and IDNA is about domain names. Thus they might use punycode if they need an ASCII encoding, but not IDNA. > Requiring new codecs for new profiles is all cost and zero benefit. What > possible value is there in forcing applications to define new codecs with > different outputs for their alternative names? The "codec" is punycode, right? If not, what is your definition of "codec"? Erik
