On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:50:42AM +0200, Klaus Malorny wrote: > interesting for domain name registries that have to deal with (maybe > lots of) IDN variants. I don't think that SRV records are a viable > solution for their use case.
While this is true, xNAME remains a crummy way to handle variants. We discussed DNAME at length in the "Variant Issues Project Integrated Issues Report", which is still available from ICANN last I checked. The problem is not just that DNAME doesn't redirect the owner name itself, because you could get around that with a little bit of automation (at least at the registry). The problem is that there's no way to find out the total set. If the claim of "variants" is that the different variants of "the same label" are really completely interchangable, then it is incoherent to assume that naïve administrators will be able to configure their machines competently. Therefore, every server offering service at a name that has variants will need to be able to figure out all its names (http servers and mail servers and so on all need to know the names by which they are known). ENAME doesn't solve this, because it's still a one-way pointer. One of the ideas I originally had for the SOPA record I proposed is that you'd be able to extend it to include this sort of variant-policy mechanism, and it's designed to be a two-way link. So far, however, I've had pretty negative reaction to that proposal. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
