Re: [idn] THis WG derailed ?

[Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>]

At 9:35 AM +0900 7/10/01, Soobok Lee wrote:
>?This WG  should focus on issues of AVERAGE length of ACE lables.

That is an opinion. There has been a different opinion of many other 
people that the WG should focus on getting an algorithm good enough 
for the vast majority of likely names. If you think the discussion 
needs to be opened again, you should speak with the WG chairs. 
However, you need to be much more specific than saying "AVERAGE".

There are three kinds of averages (mean, median, and mode); of those, 
clearly we do not want to consider mode. How do you intend to measure 
either mean or median? All of the ACEs proposed so far have different 
means and medians for different scripts. They also have different 
means and medians for names that contain characters from only one 
script versus names that contain characters from two (such as names 
that are based on a non-Latin script but use Latin hyphens or digits).

>We have not enough time for the debate around max ACE label length.

It seems like nine months is plenty of time. Could you say how much 
longer you think is appropriate?

>ONE EVIDENCE from Chinese Gov for domains of 16 han letters.
>
>(SC1) Simplified Chinese String  1 : ( 16 letters )
>       <ministry of foreign trade and economic cooperation, PRC>
>       u+4e2d u+534e u+4eba u+6c11 u+5171 u+548c u+56fd u+5bf9
>       u+5916 u+8d38 u+6613 u+7ecf u+6d4e u+5408 u+4f5c u+90e8

Two questions:
- Do you expect them to actually use that name? Or would they instead 
use one that is easier to remember?

- Why would they use "PRC" at the end if this name will be in the .cn 
TLD or, hopefully, in the TLD that will express the name "China" in 
the Chinese language?

As for the new subject line, it is difficult to see how a wide 
consensus moving forwards is "derailed". If we were at a technical 
impasse, that could be considered derailment, but certainly doesn't 
described the WG as it stands now.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium