IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [idn] Re: stability

Erik van der Poel <erik@vanderpoel.org> Wed, 16 March 2005 18:45 UTC

Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21532 for <idn-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:45:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1DBdSP-000FiA-JY for idn-data@psg.com; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:41:25 +0000
Received: from [207.115.63.98] (helo=pimout4-ext.prodigy.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1DBdSJ-000Fg7-69 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:41:23 +0000
Received: from [10.1.1.2] (adsl-64-174-147-206.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net [64.174.147.206]) by pimout4-ext.prodigy.net (8.12.10 milter /8.12.10) with ESMTP id j2GIeV5K074638; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:40:36 -0500
Message-ID: <42387D9F.7030800@vanderpoel.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:40:31 -0800
From: Erik van der Poel <erik@vanderpoel.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
CC: "\"Martin v. Löwis\"" <martin@v.loewis.de>, Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com>, Mark Davis <mark.davis@jtcsv.com>, idn@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [idn] Re: stability
References: <421B8484.3070802@vanderpoel.org> <D872CCF059514053ECF8A198@scan.jck.com> <421D8411.9030006@vanderpoel.org> <p06210208be4390618c81@[192.168.0.101]> <421E0D0C.2000309@vanderpoel.org> <p06210202be43c3888991@[192.168.0.101]> <E07CE813AD23B2D95DA0C740@scan.jck.com> <421E30F2.1040408@vanderpoel.org> <0E7F74C71945B923C52211F3@scan.jck.com> <421EA0C9.1010500@vanderpoel.org> <00a401c51af3$7863aae0$030aa8c0@DEWELL> <A574CA1BE87BFDA3C2A1AC0E@scan.jck.com> <42322CE2.4040509@vanderpoel.org> <4232B2FD.1080104@vanderpoel.org> <4232BA56.5090001@vanderpoel.org> <iluk6odazwb.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <00e801c528a8$99ad37d0$72703009@sanjose.ibm.com> <ilull8qb5n5.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <42367B63.6080300@vanderpoel.org> <4237450A.9010901@v.loewis.de> <423754F3.50405@vanderpoel.org> <ilumzt47ezc.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <42375C9E.8040001@v.loewis.de> <4237917D.9080507@vanderpoel.org> <6.1.2.0.2.20050316125429.04464370@mail.jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.2.20050316125429.04464370@mail.jefsey.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on psg.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.1
Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> What are the objections (and BTW were to find described the consquences 
> for a Registry) to Adam and Simon positions?

In order to reach a rough consensus on any changes we make to the specs 
to address PRI #29, we should consider the consequences for the 
registries. PRI #29 claims that only a handful of characters are 
involved, but we may wish to confirm that. It may also be a good idea to 
write a program that the registries could use to see whether any labels 
containing such character sequences might have been Nameprepped and 
registered.

Erik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email