New version, draft-faltstrom-idnabis-tables-02.txt, available
jefsey at jefsey.com
Sat Jun 16 02:21:42 CEST 2007
At 10:36 15/06/2007, Martin Duerst wrote:
>So what we have to do is to find a way to asses the rist, and live
>with the risk.
The problem, as you say, ....
> is of course outside of the IETF.
It is with us (registry managers). So are the financial consequences
of retractation (which may be massive), bugs, etc.
> We have to be aware of the fact that however much we try, we will
> never be perfect. Even if Unicode were perfect, there is always the
> possibility that we introduce errors.
Currently, possible ASCII DNS failures (DoS, error, etc.) fall under
the legal responsibility of ICANN. This is why it has been built as a
non-profit, no member corporation, with a growing favorable
jurisprudence, to be legal and financial fuse should it be necessary
- Insurrance companies refuse to accomodate the Internet risk.
IDNA 200X is for everyone. For common registry managers we are not
set-up that way. They will want that the reponsibility of a Unicode
error lies either with Unicode (I do not think Unicode wants it) or
more logically with the users. This is why the registrant and
everyone, including judges, have to be fully aware, accept,
and structurally demonstrate in a way or another that the registant
(and no one else) took the risk. I think this is built in the
application layer, and should not be hidden too much?
More information about the Idna-update