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

[David Hopwood <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Dave Crocker wrote:
> Eric A. Hall wrote:
> >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.

You're assuming that a hybrid design will have completely independent
ACE and non-ACE components, and that deploying IDNA first will not cause
any problems for such a design. On the contrary, I think it is pretty
clear that this would cramp the possible design space of the non-ACE
component quite significantly.

- -- 
David Hopwood <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>

Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/
RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5  0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01
Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a
public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been
seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBO948YTkCAxeYt5gVAQFhnggAjIEFHBjaT03y5Xyv2oHcJ/lprNmxvbbN
TXcIvigtlJg6mMRD0XdinVWIxCx63Yly3D9klcp4DkLlIIaHQ7qrizTKiyfjoj61
4pcp0I2Azg75F9/mR2Kjds6oi6ktXFz56q3U91QbTJal1D5ccqyqbUswUIA8rSQt
+St43Fu0NQDezMQP4TH5BNTH6VSg5HvqR5tX9AocgSu89uCkhJtJn0cTos65t83F
+eshNMlIeRhNx9UcoHw0p4SWA0vkvh5tcSyHRhJkCQ6rN6s68HWYOnTauZrFNBCv
9L8/xWJA8I1r5zhDnJmJFQSNquQgd6U1diUfcwCXS5+pxAesSrs39Q==
=zxtn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----