Re: [idn] How to match letters

[liana.ydisg@juno.com]

Dear Eric:
	I do not want to say [BCPxxx], I used the "best current 
practice" in its generic way.  If this is offending you, I feel 
my expression has accomplished more then what I hoped. 
 
	And thank you for assure me that 

>encoding schemes which are onto a 63 element set (6-bit minus 
> one
> encoding, or generally, sub-8 encodings) have their proponents.
 
	If the compression rate can be improved with reasonable 
cost, then I am all for it. 

	I do think if the WG agree that  it is better to leave DUDE where 
it is and let some of the phonetic based issues to be resoved before 
[NamePrep], then it could state it as such, it is complementing the 
current WG proposal and makes it better.   Like an automobile licence
number, some people want to pay extra to get a statment on it. 
Is this going to effect future deployment of any new technology? 
I don't think so.  Only if you want completely abandon the 
communication functions of ASCII in DNS.  It may waste someone's
work which has started, but none of us is short of such an opportunity, 
except me, I guess.

Let me know if I have offended you again.

Liana


On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 17:39:59 -0400 Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland
Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net> writes:
> Ms. Ye,
> 
> If you want to argue that a qwerty keyboard is an instance of 
> something,
> feel free. Personally I think it is an instance of "keyboard". To 
> use a
> term such as "BCP" in an IETF context takes a little bit more than 
> just
> assertion. Personally I don't think there is the slightest 
> connection.
> 
> Again, encoding schemes which are onto a 63 element set (6-bit minus 
> one
> encoding, or generally, sub-8 encodings) have their proponents, I'm 
> just
> not one. rfc768 specifies an 8-bit byte transport. rfc793 does as 
> well.
> 
> Eric
>