[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-idna-08.txt

To: IETF idn working group <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-idna-08.txt
From: "Adam M. Costello" <idn.amc+0@nicemice.net.RemoveThisWord>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 00:48:28 +0000
In-reply-to: <3CFEA854.2BD9574@ehsco.com>
References: <20020605210638.GA17962@nicemice.net> <3CFEA854.2BD9574@ehsco.com>
Reply-to: IETF idn working group <idn@ops.ietf.org>
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

"Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com> wrote:

> > Now I finally see an argument for why DNS servers in practice do
> > comparisons that way.
>
> Great.  Can we make IDNA a dumb codec now?

I can't tell if that's a deliberate non sequitur (meaning "Okay, can we
drop this topic and get back to a more important one?"), or if you see a
connection between my statement and your suggestion (I don't).

AMC

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-idna-08.txt
  - From: "Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>

References:
- Re: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-idna-08.txt
  - From: "Adam M. Costello" <idn.amc+0@nicemice.net.RemoveThisWord>
- Re: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-idna-08.txt
  - From: "Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>

Prev by Date: [idn] Fw: BOUNCE idn@ops.ietf.org: Non-member submission from ["Adam M. Costello" <amc+f16nqj@nicemice.net>]
Next by Date: Re: [idn] CDNC Final Comments on Last call of IDN drafts
Previous by thread: Re: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-idna-08.txt
Next by thread: Re: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-idna-08.txt
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread