[idn] Re: UTF-8 as the long-term IDN solution

["James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>]

Dan,

Once again, let me clarify: the chairs do not have any opinion on #1.
(In fact, I think you can put me in group #2).

But what we need is a draft, not an idea. Please point us to the draft
which you are supporting or write one. No drafts, no face-time, no RFC,
something I expected a long-time IETFer like you should be aware of.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: <idn@ops.ietf.org>; <iesg@ietf.org>; <poised@lists.tislabs.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 1:28 AM
Subject: Re: UTF-8 as the long-term IDN solution


> Keith Moore writes:
>  > I believe this is adequately addressed in RFC 2026, section 6.5.
>
> I don't see how.
>
> RFC 2026, section 6.5, is for cases where someone disagrees with ``a
> Working Group recommendation.''
>
> What's happening in this case is completely different. There is no
> recommendation. There are a huge number of WG members who
>
>     (1) agree that UTF-8 will be the long-term solution;
>     (2) suspect that there's consensus in the WG on #1; and
>     (3) believe that establishing consensus would save time for the
WG.
>
> But the chair, who disagrees with #1, is stonewalling, in violation of
> his responsibility under RFC 2418 to ensure forward progress.
>
> As you can see from http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers.html, I've
> already tried using the RFC 2026 process to handle procedural
problems,
> specifically DNSEXT mailing list censorship, which has been roundly
> criticized in POISSON recently. The process took more than two years.
> The basic problem still isn't fixed.
>
> I don't want IDN to wait two years. There needs to be a mechanism for
> the WG to act over the opposition of the chair. IETF doesn't seem to
> have any such mechanism.
>
> ---Dan
>