Re: [idn] time to move

[Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>]

> I still fail the novel point of your second note, and I'm still
> surprised that ACE could be considered as anything other than a
> "temporary", and controversial fix, unless the problem scope has
> changed without my being aware of it.

it is less controversial because it is easier than the alternatives.

it is perhaps also worthwhile to point out that fixes based on 
EDNS will not work so well through intermediaries.  so if we want
a utf-8 query protcol in addition to the ACE query protocol
that we need for compatibility with existing applications, then
we might have to wait a while before it can actually be used.

for me the choice is clear: ACE is necessary in the short term.
a utf-8 query protocol might be desirable in the longer term,
especially for new protocols that don't have the burden of 
backward compatibility.  but we have the luxury of defining 
the utf-8 query protocol after we get the ACE solution out the door.  

we cannot make the jump directly to utf-8 - it is simply not practical.

Keith