Re: [idn] WG last call summary

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

> > The objections from the Taiwanese (non-wg members btw) are noted to the
> > group.
> > See http://www.imc.org/idn/mail-archive/msg05977.html
> >
> > None of them provide any useful technical information to the last call.
> > Neither are the protest within the IETF process as described in RFC2026
> > Section 6.5.
>
> I have to disagree with this.
>
> first of all, there's no such thing as a wg member.   anybody who
> contributes to the discussion is as much a member as anyone else.

I meant to say they are not subscriber of the wg.

(btw, it is not funny to get 353 bounce mails, sorting them out and manually
replying to each of them.)

> second, this is useful technical input, and the problems with
> TC/SC equivalence are serious.  even if they can't be fixed
> reasonably with the current DNS protocol, they do have some
> bearing on the applicability of IDN.

It is useful technical input on the first time.
By the 353th time, someone got to ask what else are they contributing?

> third, I don't see why you say these are not within the IETF process,
> but I find no justification for that statement.  if nothing else,
> the spirit of IETF has always been to consider any constructive input,
> even if it were not presented in exactly the correct way.

It is a protest and appeal against the last call. The IETF process specify
the exact process to do so in RFC2026 Section 6.5.

-James Seng