National and Local Characters for DNS Top Level Domain (TLD) Names
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
(Thomas Narten) Yes
(Margaret Cullen) No Objection
(Ted Hardie) (was Discuss) No Objection
Fundamentally, I think this is well written, but could be badly read. Knowing John's history with this topic, I believe I understand the impetus for putting forward a fourth choice in this critical architectural discussion, and I appreciate the time and effort he has put into this. Knowing as well his role in the IAB during the time in which RFC 2826 was produced, I am certain his depth of understanding of many of these issues exceeds my own. But I am concerned about what will happen when this is read by someone who is not aware of this history and has no insight into the issues which John knows so well. (And I will happily admit that my own ignorance may be driving my empathy for this position). If read by someone without a deep understanding of the need for a single DNS root and an un-partitioned URI space, will this give rise to mischief? I believe it could. It is moderately obvious that someone using local translation could translate .ä¸ åœ‹ (4e2d, 570b) to .tw where the dominant view would translate it to .cn . A local translation doing that has the same partitioning effect in URI space as multiple roots do in the DNS: it creates a situation in which local resolution context over-rides the overall system's ability to ensure a consistent view of the namespace. I recommend that we ask the RFC Editor not to publish this document until it contains a discussion of this problem (hopefully using a less hot-button example than my haste forced me to use)
(Sam Hartman) No Objection
(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection
(David Kessens) No Objection
(Scott Hollenbeck) Recuse
Comment (2005-02-14 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
I'm recusing since I know that my employer has an interest in this topic.