Is the IDN implementation necessary?

[rolandshoemaker]

It appears to implement the RFC 3490-3492 series conversion which was obsoleted by the RFC 5890-5893 series which is implemented by the Golang eXtra package x/net/idna (which is pretty fully fleshed out and supports most of the added restriction profiles such as the Bidi rules etc).

[miekg]

Maybe this has outlived is usefulness, or is it actually harming to keep this in?

cc @asergeyev

[andrewtj]

Two of the four issues I've opened have been closed following a switch to x/net/idna. The other two issues are at repos which don't seem to have much activity.

Given how quickly the two that switched made the jump I don't think removing IDN support would create much of a burden on any other users that might be out there.

[miekg]

[ Quoting <notifications@github.com> in "Re: [miekg/dns] Is the IDN implemen..." ]

Two of the four issues I've opened have been closed following a switch to `x/net/idna`. The other two issues are at repos which don't seem to have much activity. Given how quickly the two that switched made the jump I don't think removing IDN support would create much of a burden on any other users that might be out there.

I'm fine with removing 'idn', it was useful, but x/net/idna seem better and more maintained. Good thing it will be a compile time failure and not be some subtle breakage.

[rekby]

Thanks to question.
Lets-proxy has vendored dns package and remove idna will not broke my program.

I will switch to golang idna in near feature too.