Security Considerations: bad split

[Martin Duerst]

+1 on all points.

[and if there are a few more +1 on the second point, then
the facts for the third point change, and my +1 for the
third point won't stay anymore]

Regards,   Martin.s

At 03:38 08/12/06, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>At 10:08 AM -0800 12/5/08, Mark Davis wrote:
>>I believe that is more confusing to users than a unified security 
>considerations section. Most people that care about security want a 
>comprehensive discussion of the security impact of IDNA2008, and splitting 
>it up into separate sections only confuses the poor reader.
>
>Agree.
>
>>The use of IDNA2008 is also just pointlessly confusing. Three years from 
>now, it will just look dumb to use the name IDNA2008 for something that 
>actually came out in 2009. And it would be just so very simple to fix; 
>taking each of the authors 5 minutes with search&replace to make the change 
>in their next version, so I just don't understand the objection.
>
>Agree. It is clear we won't even be at IETF Last Call in 2008, much less a 
>standard.
>
>>But if the rest of the wg doesn't care, I won't push this any further.
>
>Agree as well.
>_______________________________________________
>Idna-update mailing list
>Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp