Re: [idn] IDNA: is the specification proper, adequate, and complete? (was: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-idna-08.txt)

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc@dcrocker.net>
 > 
> Infinite delay of the IDN work will have one major benefit:  The current 
> proprietary solutions will gain permanent position in the market.  The 
> derivative likelihood is that the IETF work will cease to matter.

At least, IETF/ICANN/DoC could issue warnings, since they sit on the top of the DNS hierarchy.
Proposing a half-baked or unimplementable soluion as standards does not help, since  
it will be abandoned  and it will be classified as yet another proprietary solution by industries
as long as everyone knows they are just quick fix for registries, not for all the public.

> 
> We have an excellent example of this possibility with instant 
> messaging.  Let's not repeat it for IDN.

Seems Pointless. 
DNS is mandatory and universal, while application protocols are optional. 

If you are proposing  directory-flavored micro layer above DNS, you will get
my support. But it should  be called as an interactive translation service, instead of IDN.

Soobok Lee