AW: Sharp-S and Final Sigma Consensus Call Results
vint at google.com
Wed Dec 9 22:54:56 CET 2009
I think you are re-experiencing the line of exploration that led to a
contribution on mapping from Pete Resnick and Paul Hoffman.
On Dec 9, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 04:12:52PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>> don't know how to pass a rule against that which would be
>> somehow enforceable, but I think it should be clear that it
>> isn't a really good idea.
> Well, since we still haven't employed the DNS cops (my DNS-weenie
> colleagues notwithstanding ;-), it's of course not enforceable. But
> yes, it's obviously a horrible idea.
> I'm just very uncomfortable, because it seems to me that we were
> trying to leave room for "local policy to do sensible things", and
> we're now well into the realm of trying to specify at least some
> classes of "obviously insane", which means that we're making rules
> about what mapping is allowed. That seems like a box that Pandora
> ought to leave closed.
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at shinkuro.com
> Shinkuro, Inc.
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update