Re: [idn] WG last call summary

["D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>]

Paul Robinson writes:
> Something *should* be done, but your argument has a hint of
> 'I never want anything done, ever' about it, which is putting people off.

I have put a huge amount of effort into evaluating the costs of various
IDN proposals. Please read http://cr.yp.to/proto/idnc3.html before you
make any more comments about what I'm trying to do.

I have been trying to fix obsolete 7-bit IETF specifications for years.
I have been advocating for a year that the IDN WG _immediately_ declare
7-bit software to be obsolete. See the DRUMS archives for more examples.

I have a detailed web page, http://pi.cr.yp.to, tracking 8-bit bugs in a
variety of programs. I've spent quite a bit of time talking to other
implementors about this. It has been more than three years since I
suggested an easy Sendmail fix to Eric Allman.

You may be aware that I'm the author of the mail software with the
Internet's largest increase in SMTP-server deployment over the past 18
months (reaching #2 in total deployment, behind only Sendmail), and the
DNS software with the Internet's largest increase in domain-name
deployment over the past 18 months (reaching #2 in total deployment,
behind only BIND). My programs relay 8-bit data without trouble, even
though certain people obviously don't understand why this is important.

I want internationalized domain names (and mailbox names and so on) to
work. But I can't support the IDNA proposal; IDNA is a disaster. I also
can't accept having _any_ protocol move forward over so many objections.
Even the strongest desire to _do something_ is less important than the
requirement to obtain consensus for any change.

---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago