Re: The leftovers

[Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>]

At 04:24 PM 1/17/00 +0800, James Seng wrote:
>Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
> > I don't understand what is supposed to go in this section. We have all
> > the requirements above.
>
>I think there might be some very specific requirements on how gethostbyname()
>might want to behave.

gethostbyname() is not defined in any IETF standard. The IETF standardizes 
protocols, not interfaces. This requirements document should not have 
requirements for things that are not IETF standards.

>  Or how the clients should treat the multilingual
>characters, how it is encoded in packets, how it hits the wire, and how it is
>received by the servers etc.

Again, I disagree. The actual protocol document will, of course, need to do 
this, but this is not the place of a requirements document.

> > 5. Security Considerations
> >
> >      This memo raises no security issues;
> > That's not an acceptable security considerations section. I propose
> > changing this to "Specifying requirements for internationalized domain
> > names does not itself raise any security issues. However, any change
> > to the DNS will certainly affect the security of any protocol that
> > relies on the DNS or on DNS names. A thorough evaluation of those
> > protocols for security concerns will be needed when they are developed."
>
>I believe the requirement document do not raise any security issues :-)

Please read section 2.1 of RFC 2360 before you make such statements. I do 
not want to see this requirements document be rejected by the IESG based on 
your desire not to have a meaningful security considerations section.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium