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" <[email protected]>
To: "YAO Jiankang" <[email protected]>; "Xiaodong Lee" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
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
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
