RE: [idn] draft-ietf-aceid
"Brian W. Spolarich" <briansp@walid.com> Wed, 20 June 2001 20:53 UTC
Received: from psg.com (exim@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA22425 for <idn-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:53:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 15Cok0-000NPo-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:38:20 -0700
Received: from [152.160.20.25] (helo=admin1.corp.walid.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 15Cojy-000NPH-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:38:18 -0700
Received: from CHOAM (admin1.corp.walid.com [152.160.20.25]) by admin1.corp.walid.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA27555; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 20:37:38 GMT
From: "Brian W. Spolarich" <briansp@walid.com>
To: Yves Arrouye <yves@realnames.com>, idn@ops.ietf.org
Cc: idn-tf@nic.ad.jp
Subject: RE: [idn] draft-ietf-aceid
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:40:18 -0400
Message-ID: <FJEPLIJJEDBNPIOAEIHDMEEOCFAA.briansp@walid.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
In-Reply-To: <B7233BD6980AD411875700508B5BD5D2011E9472@elporto.internal.realnames.com>
Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
| > We revised draft-ietf-idn-aceid to version 02. I enclose it. | | If we expect a single ACE isn't it enough to agree on a prefix/suffix that | could work for everybody? Multiple prefixes/suffixes are only necessary if | one expects them to be needed as an ACE signature should many | ACEs coexist. My read on this draft is that the authors were expecting things to be particularly 'messy' in the ACE world, and that lots of registrations would take place based on many different ACE proposals. To my knowledge, the number of ACEs in some sort of deployment is rather small, and most do not use a prefix. The proposal to prevent registrations in the form ??-- is a good idea, and I believe this is the policy in place now in many registries. I do not believe the rest of what the authors suggest is warranted. -bws
- RE: [idn] draft-ietf-aceid Yves Arrouye
- RE: [idn] draft-ietf-aceid Brian W. Spolarich
- [idn] draft-ietf-aceid maruyama