Re: [DNSOP] new draft about idn tld variants implementation

"YAO Jiankang" <yaojk@cnnic.cn> Tue, 20 October 2009 01:06 UTC

Return-Path: <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A0603A68AE for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <aQMzwLuxC28c>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER, Duplicate header field: "Message-ID"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.532
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.575, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aQMzwLuxC28c for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F24D63A6839 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (eyou send program); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:06:31 +0800
Message-ID: <456000791.04167@cnnic.cn>
X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: yaojk@cnnic.cn
Received: from unknown (HELO whatisfuture) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:06:31 +0800
Message-ID: <013a01ca5121$8f671ab0$236ff1da@whatisfuture>
From: YAO Jiankang <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
To: Xiaodong Lee <lee@cnnic.cn>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
References: <004a01ca4d9a$9b866920$63c0ab73@YaoJK><455639457.04396@cnnic.cn><0c9f01ca4e0a$3fe656a0$236ff1da@whatisfuture><455710817.32599@cnnic.cn> <455921005.30887@cnnic.cn> <455966100.31120@cnnic.cn>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:06:31 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3598
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] new draft about idn tld variants implementation
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:06:27 -0000

Dear Hoffman,

       thanks a lot for your comments and suggestions.
      we will update it according to your kind suggestions.
   
Yao Jiankang
CNNIC

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: "YAO Jiankang" <yaojk@cnnic.cn>; "Xiaodong Lee" <lee@cnnic.cn>
Cc: <dnsop@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] new draft about idn tld variants implementation


> Andrew may have not made his point clear to the authors, but I think it is an important one: you need to treat the two options the same if you want the DNS community to take this document seriously. If this were just meant as an Informational RFC that stated the way CNNIC was thinking, of course it is not important to be balanced, but the intended status of this document is BCP, which is essentially like standards track.
> 
> If later versions of this document boil down to "technical problems with DNAME and policy enforcement problems with NS", that's fine. However, such a document would probably not become a Best Current Practice because it is simply stating a tradeoff. We have no operational experience to say which side of the tradeoff is "best".
> 
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop