Hi Rich,
On 28/09/2021 15:20, Salz, Rich wrote:
I am proposing the following for the security section. Any comments?
In particular, what about the “multiple identifiers” at the last few
lines? Should that go away now? If so, that will have ripple
effects. This text is currently at
http
Your suggestions make sense to me. Let’s see if anyone disagrees. Thanks for
reading! I agree about the PSL and spreading it around. Maybe just drop the
reference? But then, I understood what you wrote about crossing the beams, er
administrative domains.
_
Hey Rich,
I left a comment on GitHub with respect to the question about
"confusables". I'm not sold that the suggestion I made is the best, but I'm
mostly trying to see about aligning terminology to the modern reference and
save a few indirection clicks (from IDNA-DEFS to UTS36 to UTS39).
I'm a l
I am proposing the following for the security section. Any comments? In
particular, what about the “multiple identifiers” at the last few lines?
Should that go away now? If so, that will have ripple effects. This text is
currently at https://github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/pul
