Re: Inputting mixed SC/TC (Re: [idn] A question...)

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

Dear John:

I appreciate your understanding of all the problems the IDN 
does not solve. The differences between the WG and the 
CDN group is not a political issue at its base.  WG is trying 
to push TC/SC out of IDN.  The CDN and the others argue
for them to be dealt with in IDN. 

If you consider IDN is a part of DNS, then the CDN group 
say "NO, NO, NO" with force for you and the WG to raise 
eyeballs.   And I hope they have accomplished it with 
all their protests.  

If you consider IDN is above DNS then you are agreeing 
with CDN group. 

If you admit that you are not an expert in dealing with 
Han charaters processing then you should give a good 
and hard study regarding what they have been saying 
all along.

If you are understand what Xiang Deng is saying then 
don't introduce political arguements.  It doesn't help the 
communication at all. 

Regards,

Liana Ye


On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 22:35:33 -0500 John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
writes:
> --On Saturday, 09 February, 2002 10:10 +0800 xiang deng
> <deng@cnnic.net.cn> wrote:
> 
> > Chair's responsibily is not to create conflict but to collect
> > all different argument and coordinate to find a possible
> > solution.
> 
> Under normal IETF procedures, which apply to this Working Group
> as well, the Chair's responsibility, at this stage in the
> process, is to move work along.  That includes, quite
> explicitly, 
> 
> 	* Discouraging the further discussion of topics on which
> 	the WG has already reached a conclusion.
> 	
> 	* Discouraging discussion of problems that are either
> 	out of the WG's scope, or for which realistic solutions
> 	(e.g., solutions that deal with all appropriate cases)
> 	have not been proposed.
> 
> James (and Marc) have, if anything, been more tolerant of
> extended discussions of topics the WG can't fix, or has already
> reached consensus that it won't try to fix, than is normal in
> the IETF.
> 
> Since I have started on this, I am very concerned about the very
> real and serious problems with TC<->SC.  I am also very
> concerned about problems with look-alike characters in
> alphabetic character sets.  I am also very concerned about the
> implications of non-language characters in Unicode that, from my
> point of view, don't belong in the DNS (however coded).  
> 
> I have raised those issues with the WG, discovered that the WG
> isn't interested in the problems, and gone on to worry about
> contexts in which those problems _can_ be solved.   That does
> not make me worry less, nor does it mean that I think the
> problems are unimportant.  But, until and unless I think I have
> new arguments or evidence, I don't bring them up again, and I
> would _expect_ James or Marc to tell me that I'm out of order if
> I did.  I also don't try to convince the WG that those topics
> are important by getting many people --who have not been
> participating in the WG's work-- to send identical notes
> complaining, nor do I circulate notes to other groups in the
> hope that they will somehow overrule the WG.  I avoid doing
> those things for two reasons: they are considered in very bad
> taste in the IETF and they never convince anyone; instead, they
> tend to irritate people enough that they stop listening.
> 
> What is strange, to me, about this discussion is that there is a
> way to delay CDN deployment without impacting Korean or
> Japanese.  It is fairly simple, and does not require that the
> IDN WG agree. And I had assumed it would be obvious to everyone.
> Specifically, the four NICs simply refuse to register such
> names.  You try to convince Singapore and other countries with
> large Chinese-speaking populations to join them in that
> prohibition.  You expand on Erin's document, some of Prof
> Tseng's notes, and other comments and examples which have been
> introduced here to provide other registries cautions about the
> problems they could cause by registering such names.  And you
> try to convince ICANN to prohibit those names in gTLDs.   From
> the perspective of this WG, that is a policy move, made in
> policy forums.  The fact that the WG provides a _mechanism_ for
> encoding CDNs does not imply that any registry need _permit_
> CDNs.  And it seems to me that, at this late date and given the
> overlapping Japanese and Korean issues, that may be your most
> efficient way forward on this particular problem.
> 
> regards,
>      john
> 
>