On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 04:24:08PM -0400,
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 61 lines which said:
Moreover, it will aid interoperation and user experience if clients
can, in corner cases, learn what rules the server has in place so
that clients can perform mappings
Dear colleagues,
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 05:57:52AM +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote:
Personally, I think in this case it is better to for example have a
URI RR (see draft-faltstrom-uri-01.txt) that refer to some XML blob
where the policy is presented.
I should have been clearer. If I were
On 26 aug 2008, at 14.23, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I should have been clearer. If I were to go down this path, the point
of the NAPTR or SRV (or now URI, or whatever other kind of) RR would
actually be just to provide the place to look up the policy (and maybe
how), rather than to provide the
Dear colleagues,
background detail=long-winded
In the IDNAbis working group, the current proposals alter the way IDN
work. One important feature of this is a great deal more flexibility
on what might be registered at any domain. Moreover, the current
proposals allow for local mapping at the
On 25 aug 2008, at 22.24, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
To provide clients with a convenient way of learning about the policy
statements, I think I'll need a facility that I can be fairly sure the
client could use. One that has occurred to me is the S-NAPTR
approach, as defined in RFC 3958. My
