Re: [idn] Re: hostname history hell

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

> This is a dead horse that is not, IMO, worth kicking.  BCP did
> not exist at the time, and probably would not have been used
> anyway.

Correct. Things have changed. 954 has UNKNOWN as a status, which is
pretty funny, given all the heat surrounding that subject. However,
2606 is a product of the IETF, and 1591 isn't.

...
> respects, far more authority than "standards".   Standards were
> voluntary; compliance, at the top level, with IANA policy
> statements was mandatory, as many people, yourself included if I
> recall, who tried to obtain top-level "country code" domains for
> entities not on the 3166 list found out.

Indians have been trying to get into .int, and have been getting into .com,
before Jon and I began a conversation unfortunately terminated prematurely.

I wouldn't consider the IANA policy mandatory, simply expensive to ignore.
The alternate-rooters were all keen to have Indians, even some Indians were
keen to act autonomously, but we're a fairly neighbor-respecting lot, and
patient.

> So the hair-splitting you are attempting here really does not
> usefully work, IMO.

Let's stick to the technical please, either 0x33, prepended by, and/or
postfixed by 0xe2, is or isn't something. Now if you want to really
fix this "problem", just fix 2929.

> Yes. But ignoring the apps gets the IDN WG into a silly state
> (and has, already, several times).

So for a change, lets ignore the dns. Oh, that's been tried here too.

>      john

eric