Re: [idn] (bias) summary of reordering discussion

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

I hope we can do a strawpoll on reordering draft before Salt Lake
meeting. We will announce the process to do so in the next few weeks. In
the meantime, if there is any more discussion, argument for/against on
reordering, please bring them forward.

Thanks.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
To: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 12:32 AM
Subject: [idn] (bias) summary of reordering discussion


> On the questions posted:
>
> 1. Efficient - I accepted that reordering produce a shorter ACE
string,
> sometimes as much as 20%. This means instead of a "zq--zxcvbnmasdfg"
> label, I get a "zq--zxcvbnmasd". I do not buy the arguments it is
> helpful to naked eye, to memorised or save RAM however.
>
> 2. Compression efficient in future since statistic - Lee's counter
that
> compression "always SHORTER labels than usual". Mathematically, it can
> be proven this is wrong (very basic pigeon hole principle).
>
> 3. Referencing from established I18N organisation - ISO14651 is deem
> inappropriate and I agree with it. No alternative was proposed.
>
> 4. Stability of reordering - Lee's countered with the arguments that
> reordering tables would never changed. I am not sure if that is
possible
> but I agree with the assessment that it is possible to design
reordering
> to be stable. However, I like to see explictive statement in future
> draft.
>
> 5. Future additional of code points / changes to reordering - Lee's
> proposal is a two prefix solution, using prefix as a versioning tag. I
> do not like to solve a problem by creating others, especially one
which
> makes it even more complex. Lee have yet to address the process of how
> future additional of code points or changes to reordering could be
done.
> (IDN WG is not going to exist forever...I dream of finishing our work
> one day).
>
> 6. Reordering is never ending task - Lee's countered that so is
> Nameprep. My thoughts is two wrong dont make one right. (OTOH,
Nameprep
> which is based on UTC work have explicit principles on how it can be
> done. And Nameprep is not subjective to frequency analysis changes
which
> reordering is)
>
> Of the people participate in the reordering discussion
>
> Martin Duerst - explicit objection
> Mark Davis - not very supportive, not explicit
> Adam Costello - (no conclusion from comments)
> Doug Ewell - explicit objection
> Paul Hoffman - explicit objection
> Eric Brunner-William - somewhat supportive, not explicit
> Kenny Huang - (no conclusion from comments)
> James Seng - explicit objection
> Karlsson Kent - explicit objection
> Erik Nordmark - not very supportive
> David Hopwood - (no conclusion from comments)
>
> This is my rough read of the discussion on reordering so far (please
> correct me, and apologise in advance, if I am wrong).
>
> (Wearing my co-chair's hat) It is not a vote or even a strawpoll here
> obviously but I am trying to get a feel of the group consensus. But if
> these discussion is any indication of the group consensus, it does not
> indicate very little support for reordering. If there is other
comments,
> please bring them forward soon. Thanks.
>
> -James Seng
>
>