Re: [idn] Using a new class for IDN

["Soobok Lee" <lsb@postel.co.kr>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John C Klensin" <klensin@jck.com>
 > 
> > 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.
> 
> Again, I agree.  But domain resellers, others who believe that
> having "multilingual names" --somehow-- quickly are important,
> and the fear that, if the WG doesn't do something... Right
> Now... various sorts of interoperability catastrophies would
> occur, have been the sources of huge pressures on the WG to try
> to do _something_ that can be deployed quickly.   And "deployed"
> has been defined in that context by ability to put names in
> tables and get them back out.

I have never seen any of such written threat or pressure appear in this WG.
maybe, behind the curtain: "Publish the RFC, Right now! 
if not, we will balkanize the DNS!".
For what reason should we be so generous to this kind of pressure?
I can't believe any registries make such threats. Most of them promise
they will switch to/adhrere to IETF-approve IDN standards in their homepages.

In the same time, from the opposite group of consumers and countries,
there has been public and written *strong pressure* on this WG to produce 
more mature and stable and interoperrable and long-term-safe solutions.
For what reason should we be so harsh on this appeal ?



> 
> One can believe that pattern was either good or bad, but I think
> it is indisputable that the WG has been operating under pressure
> --quite large by IETF averages-- to produce some solution
> quickly.   

Do you say that  above standardization pattern was bad ?