Re: [idn] WG last call summary

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

Since some of them are my response which is taken out of context, it is my
duty to clarify any misleading statements.

> Once again: IDNA has received strong written objections from at least
> fifteen regular WG participants and _hundreds_ of other people.

The email protests from Taiwan is not against the current set of drafts but
the lack of handling of TC/SC within it.

The problem of TC/SC is not solved in IDNA either. If it were to be done, it
is either nameprep or punycode or both or another draft.

Therefore, it is misleading to suggest the problem exist in or the protest
is directed at IDNA particularly.

>    * ``Just protesting doesn't count, if an alternative or fix isn't
>      included'';

(1) IETF progress with internet drafts. A proactive participation in IETF
includes writing I-Ds that contributes to the work. Saying "I disagree with
it" without explaining why and proposed alternative solution or fix is not
constructive.

>    * ``the Chair's responsibility ... is to move work along ...
>      discouraging discussion of problems ... for which realistic
>      solutions ... have not been proposed'';

This is John's statement taken out of context in an exchange Deng Xiang have
with me. But I do not see anything wrong with it - it is the chairs
responsibility to move forward *any* drafts that have rough consensus within
the group.

>    * ``unless you have a TC/SC solution which you willing to contributed
>      to the group, I consider this discussion closed'';

See (1)

>    * ``You have only repeated problems that we already knows. You have
>      not demonstrated any solution which is technical possible now.''

See (1)

> These responses are all missing the point. When a user objects to IDNA,
> saying--for example---that IDNA will produce ``conflicts and chaos for
> Internet users of Han characters,'' you can't dismiss his objection by
> saying that you believe that the other proposals are even worse.

This is misleading, reading far too much.
No one say other proposals are even worse.

The statements you quoted above basically:
- Stop repeating about your problem, we all know it by now.
- None of the draft written on the problem have reach wide acceptence
  and therefore no rough consensus to move it forward

> As I commented before, the IETF procedures don't say ``It's okay to make
> an incredibly destructive modification to the Internet protocol suite if
> you have to _do something_.'' Until the IDN WG settles on a safe course
> of action, we will have to stick to the status quo.

Once again, Marc did not say "we have to _do something_".
You probably hear it in your dream.

-James Seng