[idn] Re: [JET-member 448] Re: Fw: Re: new members invitation

[=?utf-8?B?dHNlbmdsbUDoqIjntrLkuK3lv4Mu5Lit5aSnLnR3?= <tsenglm@cc.ncu.edu.tw>]

Dear James:
                    I just have the question: In what condition , an
Enginnering problems is never related to cost , especially a protocol that
so many user will be used .
                    Many draft are discussed and comparing with the  the
cost and time of depolyment .  And that is the first time , I can not
understand the requirements are unrelated to users who will use the results
of them.
                    I  must be learn more , I need some help to let me
understand IETF more.

L.M.Tseng
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
To: <jet-member@nic.ad.jp>; <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 11:25 PM
Subject: [JET-member 448] Re: Fw: Re: new members invitation


> Prof Tseng,
>
> I do not see what so strange about my comment. IETF is an engineering
> group so we deal with technical issues. Political, economy and business
> issues are really out not our concern.
>
> But cc: IDN WG at this moment without relevant discussion which taken
> place in JET mailing list is confusing to other so let me pull a piece
> of our discussion:
>
> Deng Xiang comment that TC-SC that:
>
> "Because IDN should be global protocol and will force all Chinese users
> to register all form TC/SC domain  name and pay unlimited money and face
> unlimited domain name disputation. Do you still think it's the local
> issue?
>
> Yes. all over the world. If you want earn money from Chinese people."
>
> I responded that
>
> "While I sympathis with this argument, unfortunately, IETF usually do
> not consider non-technical issues relevant. This is considered Layer 9
> aka "political" issues from IETF perspective." (Lee then corrected me
> that this is a "economy" issues, not "political")
>
> and also
>
> "We dont ask how much CNNIC charges per name, nor we care what Verisign
> charges to their registrar. neither do we can how much Entrust or
> Baltimore charges per certificate nor do we regulate how much hosting
> companies going to charge to their customer.
>
> None of these cost is a concern to IETF. We leave these to market force
> to play it. That is the nature of the free-market forces."
>
> -James Seng
>
>
> > > > TC/SC tables are just less than 10K, while NFKC/Legacy/Font
> > > requirements
> > > > is much higher. implementation complexity is for engineers.
> > > > but, deployment costs are transferred to innocent end users.
> > >
> > > I am not going to argue for or against TC/SC here. I am stuck in the
> > > middle myself, torn between been a Chinese and been a co-chair for
> IDN.
> > >
> > > But the arguments for inclusive of TC/SC or not should be done on a
> pure
> > > technical evaluation basis in IETF. Economy arguments as above is
> not a
> > > factor for consideration.
> > >
> > > This is why it is known as engineering trade off, not economy trade
> off.
> > >
> > > -James Seng
> > >
> > James:
> >              Let us to know what is pure technical evaluation basis in
> your
> > mind as you are a co-chair in an IETF working group.
> >              If an Engineering Requirement is not related to the
> user's cost
> > and what are user need that must be a very interest projects.  I think
> many
> > members in IDN WG of IETF also like to know the detail .  You give me
> a very
> > strange impression of IETF.  Can someone in IETF can help more ?
> >
> > L.M.Tseng
> >
>