Hi John, ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Stracke" <jstracke@incentivesystems.com> > >> >That is, if we start thinking about "8+ everywhere" instead of "ACE > >> >everywhere" scenario, then how we can get there from here. > >> > >> Same question: if you have a non-backwards-compatible server, how do > you > >> get people to use it? > > > >Non-backwards-compatible server? A server that wont handle ASCII and only > >handles UTF8... : > > > No, a nameserver that won't handle the original form of DNS. The original > DNS packet format obviously can't cope with 8-bit labels, so a server that > sent native UTF-8 in its replies (or a resolver that sent native UTF-8 in > its queries) would break compatibility. > First of all, it is not "obvious" that the current "packet format" cannot handle 8 bits because last time I checked, they operate in octets. Secondly, the proposed nameserver will definitely handle the original form of DNS... I dont understand what you are trying to say... I would not expect a version 1.0 of a word processor to be able to read a Version 4.0 formatted document. Would you? But I would expect that the Ver 4.0 word processor be able to read a Ver 1.0 doc. This is backwards compatible as I understand it. But, if you say that nameservers are not capable of handling EDNS, that is true. So, the idea is to respond in ACE if asked in ACE; respond in 8 if asked in 8 (also include the associated ACE to be used incase destination servers...http/mail/etc... are not upgraded). Edmon