Hi Stephane,
At 01:26 AM 19-02-2025, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Process remark: it is informational while the IDNA draft asks for
Standards Track.
Ok.
OK, if there is a serious discussion about business issues in every
RFC (HTTP cookies…).
A serious discussion may happen if people have some incentive to do it.
I came across a 2023 blog post which was written
by an ICANN director, Security, Stability and
Resiliency Research. Here's an excerpt from it:
"Some evidence suggests, for example, that malicious actors may prefer
registrars that provide low registration prices or that accept specific
payment methods. They also may look for registrars that offer free
application programming interfaces (APIs) for bulk registrations or
avoid registrars that require certain
information in the purchasing process.
Nonetheless, no study has systematically examined the preferences of
attackers."
I find it difficult to tell John and Asmus that
they are wrong when there is information from two
years ago which is aligned with they stated in their draft.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
