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

Xiaodong Lee <> Mon, 28 March 2011 06:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B363A6876 for <>; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <7oOv1jvE91Ba>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER, Duplicate header field: "Message-ID"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.796
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7oOv1jvE91Ba for <>; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id A90FC3A686C for <>; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (eyou send program); Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:50:11 +0800
Message-ID: <>
Received: from unknown (HELO []) ( by with SMTP; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:50:11 +0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:50:06 +0800
From: Xiaodong Lee <>
Organization: CNNIC
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Cary Karp <>
References: <20110327192512.90424.qmail@joyce.lan> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:48:36 -0000

 From my impression in ICANN meeting in SF, people with IDN variant 
issues want IETF give a perfect solution or give a answer if having 
solution or not, but actually even IETF give solution, it's impossible 
to solve issues that ICANN people concerns, to develop the standard and 
deploy the software is a very long term solution.

For this draft, we try to define the problem statement, but how to 
solve, and if we should solve it with adding new RR, is to be discussed.


Xiaodong Lee, CNNIC

On 2011/3/28 14:10, Cary Karp wrote:
> Quoting Suzanne
>> 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.
> The impression I got from the ICANN IDN meetings in San Francisco was
> that the people who frequent such events have a strong qualitative sense
> of there being a problem but haven't yet managed to articulate it
> clearly, much less solve it. What might constitute a solution from their
> perspective is similarly elusive, but in ICANN terms would mean
> something that can serve as a basis for "consensus policies" (the
> sidestepping of which caused the present headache, in the first place).
> The expectation on the ICANN side has always been that the technical
> community, by virtue of its superior understanding of the quantifiable
> intricacies of the DNS, would be able to extrapolate whatever it needs
> to know about "the problem" from the discussion as it is being conducted
> in the ICANN venue. There is no basis for assuming that the potential
> insufficiency of that belief can be successfully communicated, so the
> best we're going to be able to do here is second guess something that
> might actually help. If that were an unequivocal statement of bad news,
> I have no idea how it would be received, but suspect that it's unsafe to
> make any assumptions about its potential for bringing the discussion to
> an end.
> /Cary
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list