Re: [dnsext] Some thoughts on the updated aliasing draft

Suzanne Woolf <> Sun, 27 March 2011 22:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0607B28C0EE for <>; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:46:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.671
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.671 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KscgLWqp-6ia for <>; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:46:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D913028C0E7 for <>; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:46:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 249E1C941E; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 22:47:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 10265) id 1B717216C36; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 22:47:49 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 22:47:49 +0000
From: Suzanne Woolf <>
To: Paul Vixie <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <20110327192512.90424.qmail@joyce.lan> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Some thoughts on the updated aliasing draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 22:46:15 -0000

On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 09:37:06PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> if we're allowed to produce second class names as our answer to the problem
> then this is news to me but it massively simplifies the work.  and we will
> have the burden of explaining to all of the IDN people that these "second
> class names" will have precisely zero value for the first few years and
> very little value for the first few decades.  and, making them believe us.

Well....I hope they will speak for themselves, but I think at this
point that what "the IDN people" want from the DNS people is some real
sense of what's possible, with roughly what tradeoffs. I think they
want any news we can give them, even if it's bad (and I'm not even
sure this is bad news).

We can go into this a little more (briefly) in the session Monday
afternoon-- Andrew and anyone else who was in the ICANN IDN meetings
in San Francisco can probably shed some light.