DNSSEC + IDN + INDccTLD

[JFC Morfin]

Dear Andrew,
My point of view only concerns IDNA and what can affect its 
respective usage. I observe that many people did not deploy EDNS0 and 
are (from reports) increasingly turning it down (what ever the 
whiskey in the jar-o :-)). I, therefore, ask myself why  people do 
that, and what can we do on the IDNA side that that will help them to 
change their minds. Other answers to DNS vulnerability that also need 
to be considered: Does DNSCurve + IDN lead to a size problem?

At 15:20 02/09/2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>I'm the co-chair of the DNS Extensions working group.  I think the
>right term is going to be EDNSn, n>1, but in any case, if you have a
>full proposal, please write an Internet Draft and propose that people
>in the DNS Extensions working group consider it.  Please note that it
>did take a very long time to get fairly wide EDNS0 deployment -- and
>we're clearly not there yet, despite Joe and Shane's quick study.

 From a user point of view, the solutions/problems are all from the 
IETF (lack of) solutions + many other aspects that may conflict. The 
IETF cartesian RFC 1958 analytical approach does not sufficiently 
consider the Internet as a system (or only in a network centric 
manner). For a user, the Internet is a global system to be considered 
in a people centric way.

>Note also that EDNS0 is completely backward compatible with non-EDNS0
>implementations, and unless you're proposing something similar for
>your proposed EDNSn, it will go nowhere.

I am just considering things out of usage architetural necessity: how 
the user diversity can survive the as-is Internet ("multi-consensus 
and running mode"). I learned that going any further within the IETF 
probably costs too much. However, I am quite interested in DDDS 
logic: there might also be parallel approaches to the DNS in order to 
support the multilingual semantic namespace and, thereby, the IDNA 
application as a part of it (once defined).

jfc