Proposal for the charter
lbleriot at gmail.com
Mon Mar 17 20:59:43 CET 2008
I waited for the creation of the WG-IDNABIS to subscribe to its list.
Your list is partially copied out to me by the MLTF. But I see that
the discussion of the Charter is made on it and not on the IETF main
list. I thus subscribed and I have two comments to submit.
> At 18:12 17/03/2008, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> - Consensus to be more specific which RFCs the new work would obsolete,
> vs update or leave alone
> - Consensus to mention that solving phishing is not in scope (needs wordsmithing)
This seems strange. Before to resolve a new need, IDNA should not add
a problem. The new general possibilities of phishing result from
architectural choices specific to IDNA. They concern all the names of
domain. Would not it be abnormal that a new protocol worries only
about itself and not of twists caused in the others?
> - Consensus to remove reference to 4690 from charter
Should there not be a report of the BOF and the list of the attendees?
Is the considered consensus only that of the presents?
> At 19:44 17/03/2008, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> I consider a domain name that is looked up in the DNS, or registered in the
> DNS, to be subject to the requirements of this specification. I consider the
> format of a domain name in HTML to be outside of the scope of this
> specification, but inside the scope of the HTML standard.
Marcos and Harald, you believe to oppose. For us, you seem to make two
very good steps in the right direction! We need your two demands. But
it will make you to leave IDNA as JFC Morfin explained it to Marcos.
This is because you will need a presentation layer. Unless Marcos has
an alternative which does not modify either the DNS?
More information about the Idna-update