Re: [idn] iDNS re-chartering proposal, take 2

[Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>]

At 03:17 AM 10/29/2001 -0600, Eric A. Hall wrote:
>Dave Crocker wrote:
> > >  Going with ACE-only directly equates to two mandatory encodings.
> > > This is an incredibly high cost to lay on the Internet
>
>It is not possible for two encodings to
>be as efficient for the community as a single shared encoding.

Please attend to the difference between "incredibly high cost" and "not as 
efficient".  There is nothing contradictory in having the former be NOT 
true at the same time as the latter IS true.

One of the problems with your use of injudicious language is that it lacks 
precision.  A cost can exist, but be small.


>I have said several times quite clearly that ACE is necessary as a
>backwards compatibility mode for legacy applications.

Doing one specific piece of work, now, and deferring pursuit of an 
additional specification, for additional changes to the DNS, is standard 
IETF practise.

Since you are (correctly) declaring that we do need to do an ACE approach, 
there is no debate.

So let's move on.

d/

ps.  this line of debate is now closed, since I will not be responding 
further and it takes two to have a debate.

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464