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

["Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>]

I knew you couldn't say it.

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/