IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names  
Home | Advertise on idnforums | Premium Membership

Go Back   IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names > IDN Discussions > General Discussion

General Discussion Feel free to talk about anything and everything in this board.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 13th September 2011, 10:36 AM
555 555 is offline
ком.ком コム.コム
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,141
iTrader: (33)
Rep Power: 1679
555 has disabled reputation
[jig] the note on the IETF Problem Statement on Aliased names

So even though I no longer think a note is really needed at this
point, here is the start of a such a note:

----

The ICANN Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN WG (JIG WG) has had an opportunity to review
"Problem Statement: DNS Resolution of Aliased Names"
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iet...equirements-01) and has had a chance to talk
to one of the co-authors, Suzanne Woolf, about the draft. The WG appreciated
the time Suzanne was able to give us and looks forward to a future version of
the draft that responds to some of the issues that were brought in our
conversations. The JIG WG believes this is an important draft and hopes to see
work on it continued.

During the conversations on the draft, it was brought up that the dnsext WG was
getting ready for Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on the draft. The JIG WG
wishes to express concern about moving to WGLC at this point. While some of
our comments could be dealt with in a -02 draft, one part of the document, the
examples that are part of the Problem Statement, need to be developed further.
The JIG WG believes that the work currently being done in the Variant Issue
Project (VIP) at ICANN could contribute greatly to developing the problem
statement to the point where it would adequately express the problem as seen
from the ICANN perspective.

The WG does not suggest that IETF needs to wait until such time as the VIP
group completes it work and formally publishes and approves its final report.
On the other had we know that several experts from the IETF are involved with
that project and would like any IETF dnsext WGLC to be delayed until such time
as there is sufficient agreement within that project to adequate express the
Variant issue as understood from the ICANN perspective.

In concluding we appreciate the opportunity for the IETF and ICANN to work
together on making sure this problem statement becomes an Informational RFC
that represents the problem accurately.

http://forum.icann.org/lists/jig/msg00303.html
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 07:34 AM.

Site Sponsors
Your ad here
buy t-shirt
מחיר הזהב

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Copyright idnforums.com 2005

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54