AW: Sharp-S and Final Sigma Consensus Call Results

John C Klensin klensin at
Wed Dec 9 23:11:49 CET 2009

--On Wednesday, December 09, 2009 16:30 -0500 Andrew Sullivan
<ajs at> 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.

That is more or less why my personal view has been that the
documents should probably not go much past "if it isn't obvious
to you that this would be a terrible idea in almost all cases,
it should be" (a comment that I can easily incorporate into my
draft text about transition for Rationale).  But, if the WG
wants to go a lot further, the exchanges I've just had with Paul
may point the way to something feasible.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list