Re: [JET-member 489] Re: [idn] Traditional-simplified, yet again

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

Deng and Pat & and all,

I suggest everyone take a time out...

The IETF works on drafts. So instead of having this conversation, the
time should be spend on working on draft.

The WG move forward with consensus. There will be differences in
opinions and it should not be taken personally. And it also means not
everyone will be happy with the result. We just do the best we can with
the existing technology and information available to us.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "xiang deng" <deng@cnnic.net.cn>
To: <jet-member@nic.ad.jp>; "ben" <ben@cc-www.com>; <idn@ops.ietf.org>;
"Paul Hoffman / IMC" <phoffman@imc.org>
Cc: <jet-member@nic.ad.jp>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:16 PM
Subject: [JET-member 489] Re: [idn] Traditional-simplified, yet again


>
> Who give you the power to make this STATEMENTS?
>
> Who give you the power to STIGMATIZE other people
> in the IETF AND JET-MEMBER FORUM?
>
> Who give you the power to THREATEN AND TERRIFY others?
>
> Who give you the power to DENY CNNIC's effort?
>
> Who give you the power to COMMAND others
> what should and what shouldn't do?
>
> Deng xiang
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrik Fältström" <paf@cisco.com>
> To: "ben" <ben@cc-www.com>; <idn@ops.ietf.org>; "Paul Hoffman / IMC"
<phoffman@imc.org>
> Cc: <jet-member@nic.ad.jp>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:01 PM
> Subject: [JET-member 486] Re: [idn] Traditional-simplified, yet again
>
>
> > --On 01-10-29 21.56 -0500 ben <ben@cc-www.com> wrote:
> >
> > > How is it
> > > possible for people to delay the progress of the IETF by simply
> > > posting up messages and writing drafts?
> >
> > By
> >
> > (a) Talking about an important issue
> > (b) People tell the author what part of that issue can be solved
> >     in the DNS, and how, and point to other solutions for
> >     the other part(s) of the issue
> > (c) Talking about the important issue again, with no changes
> > (d) People tell the author again that things have to be changed
> >     because the issue can not be solved in DNS
> > (e) Go to (c)
> >
> > Myself, I have with the CNNIC people now passed point (e) four(!)
times,
> > and I start to get tired on this. The proposals from CNNIC have not
changed
> > at all since (a), and conversations have occurred on the IDN mailing
list,
> > in private conversations (one is going on at the moment) and in face
to
> > face meetings.
> >
> > Further, at second pass of (e), myself and others talked with the
> > authorities on Chinese scripts we know to verify that we were not
stupid or
> > misunderstood something. _ALL_ of these said that it was the CNNIC
people
> > which had not understood the complexity of the problem. Further, the
> > Unicode Consortium have already been through the SC/TC problem once,
and to
> > explicitly state this fact, the Unicode Consortium explicitly sent a
liason
> > statement to the IETF stating this fact.
> >
> > When all of these things was presented to the CNNIC people, the
rough
> > consensus in the wg on what to do, the information from external
sources,
> > and the liason statement from Unicode Consortium, the response is:
> >
> > - The wg don't understand the problem
> > - The external sources don't understand the problem
> > - Unicode Consortium don't work on these issues
> > - ISO have nothing to do with Chinese Characters
> >
> > And we go back to (c) again from (e).
> >
> > Sorry, but this is absolutely NOTHING but a delaying process from
ignorant
> > people.
> >
> > Note that I am nowhere above saying that SC/TC is a problem. Just
like
> > other equality (define the word equality whatever way you want) when
you
> > use more than one script -- and in some cases even with one.
> >
> > I am as you can see extremely tired on this wg not making process
just
> > because one group of people is blocking the discussions.
> >
> > This wg is not making any progress.
> >
> > Absolutely NOTHING has been changed in the proposals which are on
the table
> > the last couple of months, and as in all processes, we _could_ have
been
> > able to discuss things which we still have to polish here and there.
For
> > example, the part of the SC/TC issues which have to do with mappings
from
> > local charsets to Unicode, use of Unicode in other protocol elements
than
> > domain names etc.
> >
> > So, at the moment it is CNNIC which effectively see that the world
can not
> > use Chinese Characters in the DNS.
> >
> >      paf
> >
> >