Issue 4: The requirement should concern with protocol, not
implementation.
We refer to 2.1 paragraph 1, on the phrase "DNS interoperability".
We feels that the word "interoperability" is unfairly bias that
implementation
has to "interoperability" even with broken implementation. However, we
have no
proposal on the replacement for the word but we would appreciate a
proper
rephrasing to reflect this principle.
No recommendation at this moment.
Issue 5: What is a current domain name? What is IDN?
We refer to Section 1.1, paragraph 2.
RFC1034 Section 3.5 is a poor definition of domain name. A better one is
RFC1123. However, we also noted that even RFC1123 is not sufficient to
define
a host name and domain name properly.
We need a properly definition of label, domain and host. It is funny to
note
that we are doing IDN without even able to properly define IDN.
Recommendation:
We need more data and information and give a better definition.