At 11:30 16/08/00, Edmon wrote: >DNSSEC is extremely important but I dont think anything have to change, >at least not because of the use of DNSII. Are you stating a requirement or are you making an assertion ? I think that is good to require that IDNs be compatible with DNSSEC. It isn't obvious to me that all possible IDN proposals meet such a requirement, however. Any successful IDN proposal needs to make it clear that it will work with DNSSEC and also the details of how it works with DNSSEC, IMHO. Ran
- Re: [idn] Unicode tagging Keith Moore
- Re: [idn] Unicode tagging RJ Atkinson
- Re: [idn] Unicode tagging Keith Moore
- Re: [idn] Unicode tagging RJ Atkinson
- [idn] Unicode tagging Edmon
- Re: [idn] Unicode tagging Edmon
- Re: [idn] Unicode tagging Keith Moore
- Re: [idn] Unicode tagging Edmon
- Re: [idn] Unicode tagging RJ Atkinson
- Re: [idn] Unicode tagging James Seng
- Re: [idn] Unicode tagging RJ Atkinson
- Re: [idn] Unicode tagging Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: [idn] Unicode tagging Keith Moore
- Re: [idn] Unicode tagging Edmon
- Re: [idn] Unicode tagging Keith Moore
- Re: [idn] Unicode tagging James Seng
- Re: [idn] Unicode tagging Randy Bush
- Re: [idn] Unicode tagging Keith Moore
- Re: [idn] Unicode tagging Edmon
- Re: [idn] Unicode tagging Keith Moore
- Re: [idn] Unicode tagging Edmon
