Re: [idn] new list of wg documents and next steps

David Hopwood <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk> Thu, 19 July 2001 22:22 UTC

Received: from psg.com (exim@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA00506 for <idn-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 18:22:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.31 #1) id 15NLwb-0005l1-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 15:06:53 -0700
Received: from irwell.zetnet.co.uk ([194.247.47.48] helo=zetnet.co.uk ident=root) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.31 #1) id 15NLwZ-0005kv-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 15:06:52 -0700
Received: from zetnet.co.uk (man-s346.dialup.zetnet.co.uk [194.247.45.217]) by zetnet.co.uk (8.11.3/8.11.3/Debian 8.11.2-1) with ESMTP id f6JM5pC14329; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 23:05:52 +0100
Message-ID: <3B575A08.6BEC35C1@zetnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 23:07:04 +0100
From: David Hopwood <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en,fr-FR,fr,de-DE,de,ru
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>, idn@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [idn] new list of wg documents and next steps
References: <200107191729.f6JHTtd71079@nic-naa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
> draft-ietf-idn-requirements-08.txt, statement of scope, contains this:
> 
>         It is recommended that solutions not necessarily be within
>         the DNS itself, but could be a layer interjected between the
>         application and the DNS.
> 
> While this may be the most popular point of view, it isn't appropriate
> to place a recommendation prior to completion of requirements gathering.

I agree entirely. The following would be reasonable:

          Part of the solution may be to interject a layer between the
          application and the DNS, either in addition to or instead of
          making changes to DNS protocols.

but AFAICS, there is no concensus for the statement as currently written.
It is also ambiguous, since it depends on whether resolvers are considered
to be "within the DNS itself". The choice of whether part of the resolver
functionality is in-process or implemented by the OS, say, is an
implementation detail, not a fundamental part of *any* of the proposals.

- -- 
David Hopwood <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>

Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/
RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5  0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01
Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a
public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been
seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBO1dZwDkCAxeYt5gVAQEYewf/X1z7dnQC8L0dM/UhjcKxJxc4bdYepaoF
ACi0VHm1Rn2AhxkNZNlOUUuGecW2cUsLWTCGkoWM8su1qE64mrte8P+YdBMX+tfW
zKbn102bS+JHakCgqNMz+k8l2l0Kq393ueNQotRLlm3NrWzlAR6xfd++yYKnueXB
ios4/FjfuE8BW7/x7r1ApMOpytFiGpOsG1rtQ1SuySZKkL6vOMfl6vRt+C0BkDU5
KR7PvVA4YHrfnuK0881eZLhyekAzPeArYjWA9yNB6DhAJEy2xArcksvjliIIbzzn
Ehz8oJQQoIVxOADgsZRo/sOwwOY5Y+u+vy6wscApzJqrYRJi9NFdmQ==
=70HC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----