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

[Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>]

At 05:49 PM 10/28/2001 -0600, Eric A. Hall wrote:
>Dave Crocker wrote:
> > Ahh.  I see.  You have a complaint about working group process.
>
>No, I have an issue with agenda railroading. I feel no need to run for
>mommy's skirts when things don't go my way, however.

Perhaps you see something constructive in plaintive and inflammatory 
language on an engineering discussion list.  However it is not, especially 
absent any specific, constructive engineering content.


> > Please review the last 11 years of IETF history, in particular the
> > results of its trying to support multiple "complementary" (but actually
> > competing) specifications, versus the results of choosing a single
> > specification.
>
>SMTP, IMAP, NNTP are complementary. RIP, OSPF and BGP work well together
>when needed. HTTP and FTP aren't burning each other down. Golly, it almost
>seems like complementary is the norm.


Hmmm.  Yes.  Whereas ACE and Raw UTF-8 DNS are most certainly NOT 
complementary.  They are competitive.  They both try to solve the same 
problem, albeit differently.


>Protocols which comply with BCP18 will use UTF-8 for all protocol data
>_except_ domain names, where they will require ACE.

Yes.  As with pretty much all existing protocols.  You need to distinguish 
between starting a new protocol, versus making changes to an existing one.


>  Going with ACE-only directly equates to two mandatory encodings. This is 
> an incredibly high
>cost to lay on the Internet

Thank you for that economic assessment.  As has been pointed out, however, 
it is not valid.

Please refer to the many earlier discussions about the relative cost -- or 
rather lack of it -- for ACE, particularly given the remarkably short 
string length for Domain Names.

However, it is nice to see that you agree that UTF-8 is also an 
encoding.  As such, the relative difference in cost, between an ACE and 
UTF-8, is negligible.


>  for the sole purpose of backwards compatibility

Indeed.  Very shallow thinking.  Why would anyone want to spend effort 
being compatible with an installed base of many millions of systems?  Can't 
imagine...

Unfortunately, Eric, this has now devolved into a tutorial on first 
principals of Internet protocol engineering.  It is unfortunate because an 
IETF working group is primarily for doing engineering, rather than 
instructing participants on the basics.  No doubt other venues are more 
appropriate for extended, basic pedagogy.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464