Re: [DNSOP] new draft about idn tld variants implementation

[Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org>]

In message <4AD7FC8E.40202 at nzrs.net.nz>, Sebastian Castro writes:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > Dear colleagues,
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> my reply to Andrew inline (I don't cover all points tho)
> 
> > 
> > 
> > (3) is not, so far, an argument we have been hearing from the root
> > nameserver operators.  But in any case, this is a load and
> > provisioning issue, and is not an argument that can properly be made
> > about whether a given technology as such should be selected for a
> > given purpose.  It is rather a consideration that needs to be taken
> > into account when someone makes a decision to support variant labels.
> > It is an important operational consideration, and operational
> > constraints have to be taken into account when making deployment
> > decisions.  That's an issue to be debated in the root server
> > operators' fora, or at ICANN, but not here I think.
> 
> I think it's a valid concern about the load at the root servers and
> agree it doesn't correspond here to discuss it. If ICANN/root_operators
> decide to implemente the IDN TLD variants by using DNAME, every query
> for a name under the variant will go to the roots.

No they won't, only non-DNAME aware resolvers will go back to the
roots.  DNAME aware resolvers will perform the synthesis locally
using the cached DNAME.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org