Re: [idn] Using a new class for IDN

["Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>]

John C Klensin wrote:

> attempted blocking action (of which I am not accusing anyone in
> particular, only noting that there have been far too many
> suspicions along those lines in the WG))

Unfortunately, your role gives these kinds of statements a lot more weight
than you probably intend them to have.

In response, I will say that the only blocking actions I have seen has
been to shutdown critical analysis of IDNA. To wit:

> from the beginning -- they are infrastructure changes, not quick
> fixes, and the WG has been focused on quick fixes.

Anybody who understands IDNA knows that it is anything but a quick fix.

Oh sure, it lets registrars *sell* domains quickly, but its success with
the user community hinges on every application in the world being upgraded
to perform conversion. Furthermore, it is known that this will be a
disruptive process which will absolutely cause interoperability failures.
There is nothing fast or resolute about this. The only thing going for it
is that it is backwards compatible. While that is a necessary attribute of
any solution, it is not by itself a "quick fix" for anybody other than
domain resellers.

Most of the alternative proposals seemed to have recognized that. None of
them have been attempts at derailing anything, AFAICT.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/