Re: Layer 2 and "idn identities" (was: Re: [idn] what are the IDN identifiers?)

[liana Ye <liana.ydisg@juno.com>]

I see that you have not read the I-D yet, and Deng Xiang 
has replied your Chinese vs. Japanese arguement, I 
will wait for your comment on the language-tag issue,
or anything not up to your standard.

Liana

On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 18:51:02 EST DougEwell2@cs.com writes:
> Liana wrote:
> 
> > Please provide your reasoning.
> 
> Certainly, and I apologize for the tone of my previous post.
> 
> 1.  I did NOT agree with the concept of language tagging or script 
> tagging of 
> DNS identifiers, either for all scripts or for just a subset of 
> scripts such 
> as CJK; and I HAVE said so in the past.  DNS "names" are 
> identifiers, and 
> they are *not* necessarily words or true "names" in any natural 
> language.  I 
> mentioned the examples of "altavista.com" and "teoma.com" to show 
> that domain 
> names need not be identifiable as to language.  Liana responded that 
> it was 
> not necessary to identify the language of those two examples, since 
> they were 
> unambiguously representable in the Latin script, whereas domain 
> names encoded 
> with CJK characters could be mappable to other CJK characters.  But 
> I, and 
> others, HAVE stated many times that to provide a SC/TC mapping 
> strategy that 
> works for some characters but not others, and could provide some 
> nasty 
> surprises for Japanese users who do not equate these characters as 
> the 
> Chinese do, does not seem to be a viable part of IDN.  It might be a 
> nice 
> marketing solution, but it is not an engineering solution.
> 
> 2.  I did NOT agree that, had I and others remained silent about the 
> proposed 
> language-tagging scheme (which was not true in any event), this 
> would have 
> amounted to some sort of approval of the idea; and I DID say so.  
> Others on 
> this list, who have far more experience than I in IETF working 
> groups, have 
> stated that this is not the way IETF WGs operate.  Consensus is more 
> commonly 
> gauged using straw polls or by compiling lists of participants in 
> favor of 
> the idea and opposed to the idea, not by "pocket acceptance."
> 
> Having said this, I understand that Liana was trying to demonstrate 
> approval 
> of continuing the discussion, not necessarily approval of the idea 
> itself, 
> and I don't want to be in the position of trying to pre-empt the 
> introduction 
> of new ideas.  So I suppose it wouldn't hurt to look at the I-D, see 
> what we 
> think of it, and make our opinions known at that point.  But it is 
> NOT the 
> case that "nobody disputed" either this point or (1) above, and to 
> say so 
> made it seem like the author was merely ignoring opposing voices.
> 
> In a message dated 2001-12-01 20:05:03 Pacific Standard Time, 
> liana.ydisg@juno.com writes:
> 
> > On Sat, 1 Dec 2001 21:04:13 EST DougEwell2@cs.com writes:
> >
> >> In a message dated 2001-12-01 16:35:38 Pacific Standard Time, 
> >> liana.ydisg@juno.com writes:
> >>
> >>> Since nobody disbute with me, I take it as we are agree to
> >>> the above discussion.   I'd like to refer to my  I-D 
> >>> draft-liana-idn-map-00.txt  for more discussion in this 
> >>> direction.
> >>
> >> I absolutely DID dispute both the notion of language-tagging of 
> IDN 
> >> identifiers *and* the notion of tacit agreement to a 
> non-consensus 
> >> idea.  But 
> >> I guess that wasn't the answer the author was looking for.
> >
> > Please provide your reasoning.
> 
> -Doug Ewell
>  Fullerton, California