Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-13.txt

[Elisabeth Blanconil <[e-mail]>]

Full agreement.

Or would we have to update IDNA each time the DNS has an extra
feature? Just to repeat that IDNA respects the DNS? That was it not
supposed to be a multilayer model?

Elisabeth Blanconil



2009/10/6 Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 10:44:56AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> said about this.   If there is consensus that "say nothing" (or
>> "no reference") is an acceptable alternative, I would recommend
>> that we simply remove that entire subsection rather than trying
>> to fine-tune it.
>
> I can support that.
>
>> When the initial form of that paragraph was written a year or
>> two ago, it seemed worthwhile to warn about that situation.
>> However, at this point, maybe it isn't worthwhile enough to
>> justify the effort to fine-tune this section.    In an ideal
>> world, the warning probably belongs in the DNSSEC specs, rather
>> than here, anyway.
>
> Strictly, it's not a protocol issue, but an operations issue, and
> therefore ought probably to be operational advice (likely to be
> reviewed in DNSOP).  I cannot believe I am getting up in public and
> saying this, but if people really need that advice to be written down
> somewhere I am willing to write an I-D to say it.  Especially if that
> clears the issues with the current IDNA drafts.
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> [e-mail]
> Shinkuro, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>