Consensus Call Tranche 8 Results

[YAO Jiankang]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Simon Josefsson" <simon at josefsson.org>
To: "Jaap Akkerhuis" <jaap at NLnetLabs.nl>
Cc: <idna-update at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Consensus Call Tranche 8 Results


> Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap at NLnetLabs.nl> writes:
> 
>>     If there is no compelling analysis to support another approach,
>>     I would actually support changing the prefix.  There are some
>>     advantages in changing the prefix: it becomes clear which version
>>     of the IDNA specifications were used by the encoder.  That
>>     information is lost when the same prefix is used by both IDNA2003
>>     and IDNA2008.
>>
>> That is not changing the prefix, it is adding one. That way one
>> creates another namespace with a big overlap to an existing one.
>> Aren't we confused enough already?
> 
> Well, if there are alternatives that are better, I'm for them.  Mark's
> proposal to send two DNS queries for the incompatible characters such as
> ezset might work, 


do you think that sending two DNS queries for the incompatible characters can work?
if so, we must update all DNS resolver to support this idea? do you think that it is practicable?



>although I've seen people dismiss changing the prefix
> because it likely will generate two DNS queries.  Possibly reducing the
> number of double-queries limits the impact, although I'm not sure the
> dismissals were based on increased traffic or on design principles.
> 
> /Simon
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>