Re: [idn] Why follow IDNA with UTF-8?

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

At 10:59 AM -0500 7/15/01, Eric A. Hall wrote:
>Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
>>
>>  At 10:09 AM -0500 7/15/01, Eric A. Hall wrote:
>>  >No, only until ACE can be deprecated. This will happen on a per-app
>>  >basis where it happens,
>>
>>  In the IETF, we are not in the habit of saying "features of an
>>  earlier version of this protocol that worked fine will be broken in
>>  this new version". Can you list the advantages to the end users that
>>  deprecating ACE will have?
>
>For specific applications, there are natural benefits. Perhaps HTML v99
>will say "all URLs must be UTF8" just so state doesn't have to be
>maintained between browsers and servers.

Sorry, but that doesn't answer the question, and it instead raises a 
straw man that is untrue. What would be the advantage to end users of 
HTML v99 not interoperating with HTML v98? Also, IDNA does not 
require any state to be maintained between browsers and servers.

>  > >  or with entirely new applications that avoid using ACE
>>  >altogether.
>>
>>  That's like saying "entirely new applications that avoid using the
>  > DNS altogether". Again, please list the advantages to the end user of
>  > creating a protocol that doesn't use the same DNS as the rest of the
>  > IETF protocols.
>
>Not all applications come out of the IETF.

Applications don't come out of the IETF: protocols do. None of this 
discussion is about creating new applications.

>Whose to say that something
>won't use UTF8 solely? Maybe winsock v99 will only provide a wide API.

In the IETF's IDN Working Group, we are discussing IETF protocols. 
Anyone else is free to make whatever other protocols they want, and 
those protocols might or might not use some of the IETF's work.

So, to be clearer: please list the advantages to the end user of the 
IETF creating a protocol that doesn't use the same DNS as the rest of 
the IETF protocols.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium