Re: [idn] THis WG derailed ?

[Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>]

At 13:59 01/07/10 +0900, Soobok Lee wrote:
>I am not sure  what you mean by "significant" effect.
>
>I think shorter ACE labels benefits  :
>
>  1. save momory resources
>      shorter IDN zone file
>      save memory space of  intermediate DNS/Web cache servers
>      shorter log file for dns/web/mail transactions
>      shorter Http cookie cache entries
>
>  2. reduce traffic
>     shorter DNS queries
>     shorter HTTP host: header value
>     shorter SMTP session from to:  and rcpt to: tags

Can you give an estimate of what percentage of overall transfer/
storage will be for Hangul/Han domain names? I'm very sure this
is extremely low, also because the average Han/Hangul names will
be quite short.


>  3. for human
>     more easy to transcript
>     good for administrators to manage leaked ACE labels
>     registrants cannot avoid ACE labels now and near future

I consider that a good reason against any kind of ACE.
It doesn't, in my opinion, give any reason for any kind
of length arguments. If administrators ever have to deal
with ACE (I very much hope they don't), they will do that
by cut/copy/paste, where length is rather irrelevant.


Regards,    Martin.


>For, <Samsung Electronics  in Korean> ( 4 hangul syllables)
>
>U+C0BC U+C131 U+C804 U+C790
>
>DUDE-02  : 6s7Nt2P3vF93E      13
>LDUDE     : 5s7AB4BB             8 ( 5 chars, 38% shorter )
>
>
><Hyundai  Develpoment Company in Korean> ( 6 syllables)
>U+D604 U+B300 U+C0B0 U+C5C5 U+AC1C U+BC1C
>
>DUDE-02  : 7yyEyxsEzv5AxzFy37JtssA    ( 23 )
>LDUDE     : 5syMRtAB3FB                      11 ( 12 chars, 52% shorter )
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu>
>To: "Soobok Lee" <lsb@postel.co.kr>
>Cc: <idn@ops.ietf.org>; "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <phoffman@imc.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 1:37 PM
>Subject: Re: [idn] THis WG derailed ?
>
>
> > > This WG  should focus on issues of AVERAGE length of ACE lables.
> >
> > why?  do you have some evidence that this has a significant
> > effect on performance of ANY protocol?
> >
>