Re: [idn] case preservation

["James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

I agree with your assessment that it maybe appropriate for this wg to
publish a document on the shortfalls of the work we doing. perhaps this
document could contain information on operational issues & localization
consideration etc for domain names holder, zone administrator,
registries etc. This idea have been bouncing around for a while but it
is more important for someone to pick this up and write a draft on it.
(You will have my support in my personal capacity :-)

However, do take note that it is inappropriate for this wg to instruct
ICANN on the deployment of IDN or write a document for their
education/purpose.

"The group will not address the question of what, if any, body should
administer or control usage of names that use this functionality"

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Soobok Lee" <lsb@postel.co.kr>
To: "James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>; <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: [idn] case preservation



----- Original Message -----
From: "James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
To: "Soobok Lee" <lsb@postel.co.kr>; "Patrik Fältström" <paf@cisco.com>;
<idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [idn] case preservation


> Okay, wrong forum then. You should bring this to ICANN/DNSO/ccSO on
> this, not IDN WG.

Partly No. The problem has some aspects that lies between IETF and
ICANN.
For example, some equilvalences are now being solved by NFKC,
while others are not  only because UTC has no standard for them NOW.
Therefore, human interventions on them and its social/financial
overheads
are inevitable. Explanation and justification for that cannot be done
only in ICANN . IDN WG should provide some techinical rationale for
them and that's what i have concerns about. What if some ICANN members
ask back  "why didn't you solve that problem ?". This WG has been  for
about 2 years.

I got an impression that you says " we IETFer's are never responsible
for that issues!". I hope my impression was  false.

Soobok

>
> -James Seng
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Soobok Lee" <lsb@postel.co.kr>
> To: "Patrik Fältström" <paf@cisco.com>; <idn@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 2:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [idn] case preservation
>
> But, the real problem lies in the increased number of such
ambiguities.
> For LDH domains, we need to know about only 'O','o','1','l' .
> But for IDN, almost _ALL_ of 'a' ~ 'z' have their look-alike
characters
> in
> greek,cyrillic and cherokee script. Seeing them printed  on papers,
> most people can't know whether they are LDH domains or IDN ones.
>
> ICANN/DNSO/ccSO should make some recommendations/enforcement
> on IDN registration and dispute resolution policies
> before IDN's being deployed and owned.
>
> Soobok Lee
>
>
> > Further, this wg has chosen to use the Unicode Character Set and
> > Normalization according to UTC TR#15, normalization form KC. If you
> are
> > unhappy with how individual characters are normalized, please to go
> the
> > Unicode Consortium after reading the criteria for the normalization
> process
> > chosen.
> >
> > If you are unhappy with the choice of refering to the work in the
> Unicode
> > Consortium, that is a valid concern, but should have been brought up
> some
> > 1.5-2 years ago.
> >
> > That horse is already dead.
> >
> >    paf
> >
> >
>
>
>
>