[secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-13.txt

Elisabeth Blanconil eblanconil at gmail.com
Tue Oct 6 17:59:50 CEST 2009

Full agreement.

Or would we have to update IDNA each time the DNS has an extra
feature? Just to repeat that IDNA respects the DNS? That was it not
supposed to be a multilayer model?

Elisabeth Blanconil

2009/10/6 Andrew Sullivan <ajs at shinkuro.com>:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 10:44:56AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
>> said about this.   If there is consensus that "say nothing" (or
>> "no reference") is an acceptable alternative, I would recommend
>> that we simply remove that entire subsection rather than trying
>> to fine-tune it.
> I can support that.
>> When the initial form of that paragraph was written a year or
>> two ago, it seemed worthwhile to warn about that situation.
>> However, at this point, maybe it isn't worthwhile enough to
>> justify the effort to fine-tune this section.    In an ideal
>> world, the warning probably belongs in the DNSSEC specs, rather
>> than here, anyway.
> Strictly, it's not a protocol issue, but an operations issue, and
> therefore ought probably to be operational advice (likely to be
> reviewed in DNSOP).  I cannot believe I am getting up in public and
> saying this, but if people really need that advice to be written down
> somewhere I am willing to write an I-D to say it.  Especially if that
> clears the issues with the current IDNA drafts.
> A
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at shinkuro.com
> Shinkuro, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update

More information about the Idna-update mailing list