-----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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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-----
