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

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

Normally I wont bother with a reply on this, but:

1. When I speak as a co-chair, I will normally state so. Until then, I
am
   a wg member like everyone else, entitled with my opinion. Do not
   confuse my various hats. I have too many of them, enough for you
   put my words into other context which is inappropriate.

2. Suggest you read the original proposal on two prefix *first* then
   maybe you could post something more technical constructive. Obviously
   from your questions, you have not even readLee's original proposal on
   two prefix.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
To: "James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
Cc: "Soobok Lee" <lsb@postel.co.kr>; <Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca>;
<idn@ops.ietf.org>; <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [idn] Re: suggestion: two prefices scheme for unassigned
code points treatments.


> 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
>