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

[Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>]

At 08:20 AM 6/17/2002 +0900, Soobok Lee wrote:
> 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.
1. You are entitled to your opinion.

2. The apparent IETF rough consensus differs from your opinion, markedly.

3. Why you believe the technology is unimplementable is a matter of some 
curiosity.

4, The design principles are very far from half-baked.  In fact they are 
very well established, with extensive practical history that demonstrates 
their real, high utility.

5. Calling something from the IETF "proprietary" suggests that you also 
have a definition of proprietary that is at odds with standard industry 
nomenclature.


d/

----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dave@tribalwise.com>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850