Re: [idn] time to move

[bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich)]

I agree with Dan. Let's focus on a clear point of agreement, and ask for
consensus on *just* nameprep. 

So, for the record, I answer "no" to the straw poll, and propose a
more-limited poll on agreeing to move forward with nameprep.

I'd prefer to reconsider other alternatives, whether transition based or
not, such as UDNS, Paul and Marc's IDNE and John's proposal for a new class
(draft-klensin-dnsclass0e) instead of a permanent ACE solution like IDNA at
this point...

Regards,

Bill Semich

At 11:44 AM 5/23/01 +0200, Dan wrote:
>
>>>1) Are we going to use UTF-8 only? (and accept that this will force
>>>    many applications to get fixed, that otherwise could wait a long time
>>>    with fixing).
>>
>>this was not the design team recommendation and perceived wg concensus.
>
>That was long time ago. There have been much talking about UTF-8 since then.
>But I agree that most do not dare say "just UTF-8" so I expect
>a solution with both UTF-8 and ACE is what most think is best.
> 
>>This electronic straw poll is to find if the wg still think the 
>>idna-nameprep-ace is the way to go. If we find no concensus on 
>>idna-nameprep-ace proposal, then we go back to the drawing board.
>
>I do not think it answers that, because it does not specify the
>alternatives.
>
>I also dislike combining two things into one. Nameprep has some basic
>failures in which characters match which that should be agreed on first.
>Before it can go on.
>
>
>
>>>2) If the answer to 1) is No, the an ACE will be nedded.
>>>
>>>    The we get: Is the goal to have UTF-8 as nativ format in DNS in
>>>    the future, or are we going to use ACE forever?
>>>      - If we are going for UTF-8 then ACE is a transition mechanism.
>>>        The ACE should then be simple and fast to implement.
>>>      - If we are going for ACE forever, the ACE selected need to
>>>        be compact so that as many characters can be included in
>>>        as few bytes as possible.
>>
>>the ACE design team is working on that. If there is a concensus of the wg 
>>for idna-nameprep-ace, then the ACE design team will hopefully come to the 
>>wg with a recommendation.
>
>Why is the ACE design team working on that? It is something that
>should be discussed by all before we decide what ACE should be used.
>Where is the archive of the ACE design team work?
>
>If we decide that DNS should use UTF-8 and ACE is a transition
>mechanism, IDNA is only a temporary and partial solution to what we
>need. ACE support should be declared dead about 2010 so only UTF-8
>is supported.
>
>I do not want ACE for more than a transition mechanism with a
>clear end date. I am tired of "quoted-printable" solutions and all
>the problems they result in.
>Also why only IDNA? Why not like in UDNS with server support.
>Support at my site will be server based, as far as possible. It
>is much easier than upgrading all applications.
>
>   Dan
>
>
>
>