On 01:40 09/09/02, Ted Hardie said:
For those who are helping registries understand the impact of all of this,
it may be useful to repeat this mantra at frequent intervals, so that they
understand that their restrictions, desires, and preferred
mappings simply do not exist at the protocol level. Any attempts to
restrict, to establish mappings or otherwise satisfy their desires should
not rely on protocol action
which protocol? there are only "text processing" functions.
you mean that these functions are universal. True.
you also mean that here the application of these functions is universal.
True, but IMHO this is WG mission creep. This comes from the use of a
prefix which is only a suggestion.
RFC 920: every host will be in the domain ".arpa".
IDNA: every IDNA will be of the "he iesg--xxxx" format.
This creates a left to right hierarchy in the domain name space,
conflicting with the right to left one. This new hiearchy is related to a
first function. So this is a functional hirearchy. Who will manage it, how,
will it be recursive when new functions will be added? And most important
point "which one has the lead"?
I cannot see any of these problems in my parallel domain scripting scheme,
which only consists in hiding upper level labels including "--"?
jfc