Re: [idn] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-arrouye-idn-ie5-resolution-00.txt

["Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@prodigy.net>]

When you say...."illegal monopoly"....Are you referring to ICANN ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-Arizona.com
http://www.DOT.Arizona


----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: "Yves Arrouye" <yves@realnames.com>
Cc: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [idn] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-arrouye-idn-ie5-resolution-00.txt


> > > (and unless you have knowledge that Microsoft will fail to implement
> > > IDN correctly once it is standardized, could you also remove
> > > "and Above" from the title?)
> >
> > Well, this is how it works in IE 5.5 too. And in IE 6 beta. And in later
> > versions of IE, I'd assume, until this working group produces a
> > recommendation.
>
> right.  but if the document is published as an RFC then the title is
> frozen, even if the behavior of IE changes.    so the title could
> be misleading at some point.
>
> > Nor do I believe that we are abusing either the IETF publication process
or
> > protocol standards, as you suggested, by the way. We replied to a
request
> > for information, and believe that both the disadvantages (e.g. doesn't
work
> > as part of an URI) and the advantages of this approach have been
presented.
>
> I do appreciate your documeting the interface, I just don't think that
> some of the language is appropriate.
>
> as for documenting the disadvantages, you haven't even scratched the
surface.
> for instance, you're giving support to at least one illegal monopoly that
> continues to use its power to victimize consumers.
>