Re: [DNSOP] Status of IDNA

2017-04-12 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 07:45:41PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 03:47:14PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > > Just move on to non-transitional UTS#46. > > Given that its mappings include many emojis, which aren't allowed > under either IDNA2003 or IDNA2008, I think the

Re: [DNSOP] Status of IDNA

2017-04-12 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 03:47:14PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > Just move on to non-transitional UTS#46. Given that its mappings include many emojis, which aren't allowed under either IDNA2003 or IDNA2008, I think there is an apparent problem with UTS#46 too. One might be forgiven for wonderin

Re: [DNSOP] Status of IDNA

2017-04-12 Thread Andrew Sullivan
Accidentally sent this just to Florian. Fixing that. On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 01:36:49PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > What's the current standardization status of IDNA? It's complicated. > As far as I can tell, a lot of vendors are still stuck with the original > IDNA standard (IDNA2003). Wel

Re: [DNSOP] new ANAME draft: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname-00.txt

2017-04-12 Thread Peter van Dijk
On 11 Apr 2017, at 20:16, Paul Wouters wrote: On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Tony Finch wrote: ANAME records are not just for zone apexes. There are lots of other cases where address records need a different alias target from MX records, or NAPTR records, etc. Can you give me an example of deployin

Re: [DNSOP] new ANAME draft: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname-00.txt

2017-04-12 Thread Peter van Dijk
On 11 Apr 2017, at 21:11, Paul Wouters wrote: I still feel using ANAME without preprocessing by auth nameservers and fixing returning multiple record type to a single query is the more generic and fix for this problem. As Evan said, we would love to go back in time and add ANAME support to al

Re: [DNSOP] new ANAME draft: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname-00.txt

2017-04-12 Thread Peter van Dijk
On 12 Apr 2017, at 10:21, Florian Weimer wrote: SRV wouldn't work anyway because it is incompatible with existing name resolution interfaces anyway. Which browsers tend to avoid as far as I know, but it’s besides the point - browsers are not doing SRV and we have to accept that. If you do n

Re: [DNSOP] Status of IDNA

2017-04-12 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 01:36:49PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > What's the current standardization status of IDNA? > > in different browsers. Some browsers are still doing "transitional" UTS#46, it is time they move on. In up to date releases: Firefox:Already U

Re: [DNSOP] new ANAME draft: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname-00.txt

2017-04-12 Thread Tony Finch
Paul Wouters wrote: > > Hmm okay. Although you could just make a real zone cut there and then it > becomes the APEX case again :P Well, this is the kind of "just" that involves a huge co-ordination cost updating the configuration of on-site and off-site secondary servers, and may have billing imp

Re: [DNSOP] new ANAME draft: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname-00.txt

2017-04-12 Thread Florian Weimer
On 04/11/2017 10:47 PM, Evan Hunt wrote: On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:20:31PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: And in order to accommodate them, we upgrade the DNS server infrastructure across the Internet? Them, and web browser implementers who just don't want to use SRV. SRV wouldn't work anyway