COM/NET informational message

Sat Jan 4 10:04:08 UTC 2003

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- --On Friday, January 03, 2003 18:31:18 +0000 "E.B. Dreger"
<eddy+public+spam at noc.everquick.net> wrote:

> UTF-8 is a standard.  MS products have used two-octet chars to
> support Unicode for a long time.  Any reason to add yet another
> encoding?

(Sorry, moderator, I have to use upper case here.)

PLEASE. 

This (ie. IDN) has been discussed (and finally decided) in the IETF IDN wg
for AGES now. If you are so concerned, why did you not engage yourself
there? It is no secret what has been decided there. 

As to technical merit, the others who responded have outlined pretty well
why UTF-8 is a Bad Idea For DNS. 

That Verisign are taking this forward is, in the way they have chosen to
do, not really elegant, but I do understand their reasoning, and to some
extent appreciate that things are happening. Keep in mind that they are not
breaking standards, they are extending one application. 

The other, earlier attempts to do things like this (especially NuNames)
have been way more rogue than this. 

- -- 
Måns Nilsson            Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204         KTHNOC  MN1334-RIPE

We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (OpenBSD)

iD8DBQE+FrGZ02/pMZDM1cURAslNAJ48uUWgHsJrFmt8ypbg9tOSl2h0jQCgqSV5
Gl0DP8lt2H/MUbxcu3LjmdE=
=v2ZY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----