IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IDNA and U+08A1 and related cases (was: Re: Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-json-i-json-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT))

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Tue, 27 January 2015 00:45 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E80CB1A037B; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:45:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.666
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
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 ffG7oWnu2MPt; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:45:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a105.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36C381A0062; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:45:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a105.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a105.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1432F2005D82D; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:45:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=XDm9v8HXaADdmI x9FJJPFjXzwxE=; b=R/jaIIinY1UH46mxtHdVfcwi35e7UzLxNFgHsfz6XMBJS8 msJzTafh1zLhxRstabQJc7ZUqxQGruVAbv5GmfkDhZ+U0rvaNbg4auq+2WE0NBsA f3iYol3sUw7meUdqOHuU78uKSmHSL8V+ivUbU4jTl8YJGmVsvzfd1umbW44tw=
Received: from localhost (108-207-244-174.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net [108.207.244.174]) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a105.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7081C2004EE0B; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:45:44 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 18:45:29 -0600
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: IDNA and U+08A1 and related cases (was: Re: Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-json-i-json-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT))
Message-ID: <20150127004524.GD19544@localhost>
References: <5A8468D3DF4EEDF3A4715FD7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <20150121212700.GU2350@localhost> <F51F2760094ECDCACD7BD411@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <54C5DF1E.2070106@ix.netcom.com> <54C5E9F9.2000501@qti.qualcomm.com> <54C5FAD2.1010507@ix.netcom.com> <CAK3OfOiomYxRk-o_Hi+EBnO6rdefmL1rJRPcGXC4wKULh4Wq=g@mail.gmail.com> <54C65ECE.8030500@ix.netcom.com> <20150126181305.GB19544@localhost> <53F7192220184F83FF8C472C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <53F7192220184F83FF8C472C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jrghsSfZqNMg7Xd1sC2D7pTNu9c>
Cc: Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>, ietf@ietf.org, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, idna-update@alvestrand.no, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 00:45:46 -0000

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 06:08:40PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Monday, January 26, 2015 12:09 -0600 Nico Williams
> <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
> > Right, if a registry screws this up, their reputation has to
> > suffer.
> > 
> > (The same goes for CAs, no?  Though of course DNS has to come
> > first.)
> 
> While I'm certainly in favor of shaming evildoers, keep two
> things in mind.  First, while the number of distinct registry
> operators is much smaller, the number of TLDs may soon exceed
> the number of active CAs.  The total number of zones and zone
> administrators probably deserves terms like "astronomical".

Meh.  There may be many new TLDs, but they are looking rather empty and
insignificant.  We'll see how it goes for them, but I'm betting on
'badly'.  In any case: it doesn't matter.  What matters isn't how many
of these there are, but that the number of unconstrained CAs be low
(which DNS achieves, while the WebPKI does not).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email