IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [I18nrp] Conservatism principle doesn't go far enough

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 01 February 2019 02:54 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A4F9126C01 for <i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 18:54:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=KAt/i6mc; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=aU2J4E6p
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YYvzQdBQhWxA for <i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 18:54:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6E66126CC7 for <i18nrp@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 18:54:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 84851 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2019 02:54:04 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=14b71.5c53b4cc.k1901; bh=sqNli1jNZwnLV+yJzz/7RI/0d66eeKphMzsgMtSE5dY=; b=KAt/i6mc9UeIdPuIopIc2VNhxPsBqif20kRdYRDufiPLuBbaE0JJt6Ug7cSdOmxq273AZfTPYeZibR6VXi5e/Ik719iqknV/TIk8cHdKS/Z0sSay97y7KxU+Rn17oAppNnYEU6bjOewqg4Kftx17vdQAhcgXU4QhJlKZYpJ1JukkG/aPjSnbOAFxE9qYjdmUo3jReOr8G/OprvZGaMEeiuXwguvZ6p3p8PLIN21VIabfanX/7i2e+Al6UORB1I8j
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=14b71.5c53b4cc.k1901; bh=sqNli1jNZwnLV+yJzz/7RI/0d66eeKphMzsgMtSE5dY=; b=aU2J4E6pDCEs0Sp6KhC+YblmY6c7vKRtbwMFlDvidxZZdkAwijl4QkTNIZIC+7gOHemRp4ZbVJfE81GykA7moGlIabHEbE1MNboDpWfXqNs2ErV75y2Sd3u/kKGXu8ZJtgJ78+H9XRiQF4aXF0CeF4hUktgEBR/+ajsa+9QKX9fQJueyHeKU3ddBOJRP5CvFaFMr5qQ9iNk9bJcwhks16vXIMQxsVHMoKR+py9lFkI2lQGqknkeieIuO+ab2hmmA
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 01 Feb 2019 02:54:03 -0000
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 21:54:03 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1901312152440.11394@ary.qy>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: i18nrp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4C0F3C8D65FB57C697E72F8D@PSB>
References: <20190201021802.A5160200D93BBA@ary.qy> <4C0F3C8D65FB57C697E72F8D@PSB>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i18nrp/LzeX6Dpp8nXGci_XEWh8b2fvC-E>
Subject: Re: [I18nrp] Conservatism principle doesn't go far enough
X-BeenThere: i18nrp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internationalization Review Procedures <i18nrp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i18nrp>, <mailto:i18nrp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i18nrp/>
List-Post: <mailto:i18nrp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i18nrp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp>, <mailto:i18nrp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2019 02:54:08 -0000

> numbers in a different context.  But Larry's assertion, at least
> as I understood it, was a little different and asserted that one
> would not want to register a domain name that wouldn't be
> displayed properly by a major browser).  For that assertion, the
> "non-contracted parties" count.

Oh, no disagreement there.  I hardly need to tell you that the 
relationship between some ccTLDs and ICANN (and in some cases, everyone 
else) can be fraught.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email