Subject: RE: [idn] draft-ietf-aceid

From: Yves Arrouye <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 11:50:23 -0700

> We revised draft-ietf-idn-aceid to version 02.  I enclose it.

If we expect a single ACE isn't it enough to agree on a prefix/suffix that
could work for everybody? Multiple prefixes/suffixes are only necessary if
one expects them to be needed as an ACE signature should many ACEs coexist.

YA

---

From: "Brian W. Spolarich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:40:18 -0400

| > We revised draft-ietf-idn-aceid to version 02.  I enclose it.
|
| If we expect a single ACE isn't it enough to agree on a prefix/suffix that
| could work for everybody? Multiple prefixes/suffixes are only necessary if
| one expects them to be needed as an ACE signature should many
| ACEs coexist.

  My read on this draft is that the authors were expecting things to be
particularly 'messy' in the ACE world, and that lots of registrations would
take place based on many different ACE proposals.

  To my knowledge, the number of ACEs in some sort of deployment is rather
small, and most do not use a prefix.  The proposal to prevent registrations
in the form ??-- is a good idea, and I believe this is the policy in place
now in many registries.

  I do not believe the rest of what the authors suggest is warranted.

  -bws