Re: [DNSOP] new draft about idn tld variants implementation

["YAO Jiankang" <yaojk at cnnic.cn>]

Dear Hoffman,

       thanks a lot for your comments and suggestions.
      we will update it according to your kind suggestions.
   
Yao Jiankang
CNNIC

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>
To: "YAO Jiankang" <yaojk at cnnic.cn>; "Xiaodong Lee" <lee at cnnic.cn>
Cc: <dnsop at ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] new draft about idn tld variants implementation


> Andrew may have not made his point clear to the authors, but I think it is an important one: you need to treat the two options the same if you want the DNS community to take this document seriously. If this were just meant as an Informational RFC that stated the way CNNIC was thinking, of course it is not important to be balanced, but the intended status of this document is BCP, which is essentially like standards track.
> 
> If later versions of this document boil down to "technical problems with DNAME and policy enforcement problems with NS", that's fine. However, such a document would probably not become a Best Current Practice because it is simply stating a tradeoff. We have no operational experience to say which side of the tradeoff is "best".
> 
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop