AW: Sharp-S and Final Sigma Consensus Call Results

Vint Cerf vint at
Wed Dec 9 22:54:56 CET 2009


I think you are re-experiencing the line of exploration that led to a  
deliberately light-handed
contribution on mapping from Pete Resnick and Paul Hoffman.


On Dec 9, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 04:12:52PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>> don't know how to pass a rule against that which would be
>> somehow enforceable, but I think it should be clear that it
>> isn't a really good idea.
> Well, since we still haven't employed the DNS cops (my DNS-weenie
> colleagues notwithstanding ;-), it's of course not enforceable.  But
> yes, it's obviously a horrible idea.
> I'm just very uncomfortable, because it seems to me that we were
> trying to leave room for "local policy to do sensible things", and
> we're now well into the realm of trying to specify at least some
> classes of "obviously insane", which means that we're making rules
> about what mapping is allowed.  That seems like a box that Pandora
> ought to leave closed.
> A
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at
> Shinkuro, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at

More information about the Idna-update mailing list