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

[John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>]

James (and Marc),

Speaking strictly as an individual participant in the WG and not
as technical advisor or anything else:   I think it would be
worth devoting a bit of discussion time on Monday to
noise-reduction on the mailing list.  The WG has to get focused
and get something out; charter revisions might or might not
help, but just are not the point.

There was some justification for discussion of "ways to do
internationalization that don't necessarily fit in the DNS"
occurring on the IDN list when there were no other obvious
places, but, at this point, the IRNSS (for name-searching
mechanisms layered on top of the DNS) and INTLOC (for broader
internationalization issues not limited to name/identifier
lookup and searching) are both alive, public, and maintaining
mailing lists.

At this point, I think you need to figure out a way --and get
reasonable consensus from the WG about it-- to determine what
areas are far off-topic (perhaps because they have no plausible
place in a DNS-based implementation) and stop them from
cluttering up the WG mailing list.  If explicit warnings to the
individuals involved (I would recommend in plain sight of the
WG) are insufficient, then you may have to consider mechanisms
to prevent the offenders from making further postings.  Again,
there are other places for those discussions.

Note that I'm not making this suggestion about documents that
you have taken off-queue but which would be reasonable for the
WG to discuss if there were more support.  I think that is a
different case that should be dealt with differently.  But the
approaches that don't belong in this WG --because they are
heavily language-based, or don't involve direct CCS
representations of the words or identifiers or interest, etc.--
have never been on-topic or in-charter, no matter how
interesting they are, and it may be time to stop those
discussions in this WG.

Just my opinion but, if others are having as much trouble as I
am focusing on the important issues because of all this noise,
it is time.

       john


--On Friday, 07 December, 2001 18:42 +0800 "James Seng/Personal"
<jseng@pobox.org.sg> wrote:

> May I remind everyone that this I-D is not in the WG Pool
> _again_? So if anyone wants to discuss about this draft,
> kindly bring it offline away from the working group directly
> with Liana.
> 
> Liana, AFAICS, there is only one document in the wg pool that
> talks about TC-SC, ie, tsconv. And your documents are not one
> of them.