Another thoughts on TRANSITIONAL
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Sun Dec 6 18:31:30 CET 2009
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 07:51:18AM -0500, Vint Cerf wrote:
>> under IDNA2008 rules on a registry by registry basis (I mean registry
>> in its
>> most general sense, not just TLD)
> The overwhelming majority of DNS operators -- i.e. "registries" -- in
> the world are blissfully unaware of ...
It is also the case that the very large set of operators use only LDH
in forming labels.
Either the assertion that the problem is scoped is true, or it is not.
If the problem has scope, that is, problematic values are not
sprinkled at random across under some 300 distinct graphs sharing the
property of being anchored in the IANA root -- .mil and the rest of
the odd balls included, and are also not sprinkled at random across
any other collection of distinct graphs having some other anchor, and
even those irritating pseudo-graphs injected by amusing ISPs that
appear to have anchors, yet do not (that's "stupid browser hacks" for
Yoav and Subramanian), then the absence of signs of intelligent life
in the larger universe of unaffected and uninterested and uninhabited
(by problematic values) zones managed by DNS operators is not relevant.
Is our problem pervasive, or is it local to some graphs? Do we care
equally, which is to say we don't care at all, about the graph that is
anchored in .gr, and random nodes everywhere else?
I don't think our problem scope is well bounded by "at the
_top_ level we can co-ordinate something", or by "unbounded", that is,
is application, rather than delegation, defined.
If the existing problem is scoped (and I do ignore the certainty that
someone somewhere will create something intentionally in an arbitrary
node in an arbitrary graph with an arbitrary anchor), then for central
design choices to be revisited to allow an unscoped solution, is not a
More information about the Idna-update