On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 03:04:26PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > 2005-Dec-19 draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize > > 2006-Jan-08 > > No promise, but I intend to review this.
I reviewed <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-02.txt>. I have, to begin with, a couple of nits. First, according to the doc it will expire before Jan 8. I don't know whether that's a problem. Second, the discussion in section 3.2 has "yellow" in the parenthetical remarks about the simulator program, but uses "orange" in the text. More substantively, I also wonder whether people believe that the uptake of IDNs (in particular) has been big enough that the "new estimates" caveat at the end of section 3 now needs to be taken into consideration. My sense is, "not really", but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. I do know there are some registries that are pretty actively promoting IDNA registrations; but I am not so far convinced that the rate of adoption has been so big as to invalidate the assumptions of the draft, and I don't see that the labels resulting from most of those registrations are causing significant bulk in most zones. Other than that, I think this is a useful contribution. According to the tracker, there was some question about it going under BCP or Informational. I would support the latter (I don't think there's enough positive guidance here to call it a BCP). A -- ---- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> M2P 2A8 +1 416 646 3304 x4110 . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
