Re: [idn] Re: suggestion: two prefices scheme for unassigned code points treatments.

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

Co-chair James Seng wrote to Soobok Lee:

> Other may be too polite to say this but this proposal is so absurb that
> I don't even know where to start.

It is the job of a chair of an IETF WG have access to sufficient expertise
to "know where to start", and usually it is a plus if the chair is civil.

> [snip section on two prefix]
> > halfbaked idea. welcome any corrections and suggestions.
> 
> You got this part right tho.

When a contributor to the IETF sollicits "corrections and suggestions",
he or she is working in the spirit of the IETF, which fundamentally is
a body which coordinates and harmonizes "corrections and suggestions"
(aka "interoperation") between network infrastructure implementors through
a formal specification process we refer to as "drafting protocols".

Anyone who fails to understand specification of at least two independent
interoperable implementations from different code bases, with sufficient
successful operational experience, is the core criteria for an IETF memo
to be a draft standard, fails also to understand that only constructive 
engagement between implementors leads to an interoperable outcome. There
is no place for non-constructive "wit", particularly in a chair.

> Suggest you go work on it further. Do not think of this as a problem of
> "how can I get reordering into IDN" and forget the other issues of
> general use of domain names, behavior and stability.

Exactly how does transformations on code-blocks at some point within the
proposed framework (e.g., unicode, nameprep, reordering (tc,sc,jc,kc), 
amc-z|utf-8) have a non-interoperable manifestation as "general use of
domain names, behavior and stability"?

Eric