IDNA and U+08A1 and related cases (was: Re: Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-json-i-json-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT))
nico at cryptonector.com
Tue Jan 27 01:45:29 CET 2015
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 06:08:40PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Monday, January 26, 2015 12:09 -0600 Nico Williams
> <nico at cryptonector.com> wrote:
> > Right, if a registry screws this up, their reputation has to
> > suffer.
> > (The same goes for CAs, no? Though of course DNS has to come
> > first.)
> While I'm certainly in favor of shaming evildoers, keep two
> things in mind. First, while the number of distinct registry
> operators is much smaller, the number of TLDs may soon exceed
> the number of active CAs. The total number of zones and zone
> administrators probably deserves terms like "astronomical".
Meh. There may be many new TLDs, but they are looking rather empty and
insignificant. We'll see how it goes for them, but I'm betting on
'badly'. In any case: it doesn't matter. What matters isn't how many
of these there are, but that the number of unconstrained CAs be low
(which DNS achieves, while the WebPKI does not).
More information about the Idna-update