Re: [idn] iDNS re-chartering proposal, take 2

["Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>]

Dave Crocker wrote:

> We are doing engineering, not science.  Perhaps that disparity of view
> is the source of some difficulties among participants.

It is certainly clear that scientific analysis is being sacrificed in
favor of agenda manipulation and beauracracy, yes.

> uDNS a) is not a complete specification, and b) imposes operational
> requirements that are not viable in the existing DNS infrastructure.

IPv6 is different from IPv4, OSPF was different from RIP, IMAP is
different from POP, why is anybody surprised that a UTF-8 DNS which
provides a top-to-bottom internationalized DNS is going to be different
from a hostname-restricted IDNA?

Of course, last time this was brought up for discussion, the beauracracy
called technical analysis off-topic. No surprise you want to formalize
such a position through agenda reconstruction. Color me unimpressed.

> How very strange.  Some of the proposals do not want a single technical
> specification, or they do not want to stop researching?

What's so wrong with multiple complementary specifications? Why are you
committed to a single specification which only serves a single objective
of legacy compatibility and which does so at the expense of every protocol
and application yet to be written?

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/