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 12:38 AM 6/23/2002 +0900, Soobok Lee wrote:

> Do you suggest that the new narrower specification should be about
"new" is not a word I would use, right now.  I am talking about cutting 
away the generalities from the current work and leaving the portion that 
applies to usage for the immediate need.



>   1)  transitional directory solution that may become the precursor to 
> the real IDN with "NEW CLASS" ?  or
>   2)  the real IDN limited to hostnames  and its supporting RRs 
> (NS,A,MX,CNAME) ?
The idea of defining something that is a transition, without already having 
the the end-point of the transition also defined and in the process of 
being deployed is simply not practical.

When "transition" takes 5 years and more, it is counterproductive to think 
of transition as temporary.

The work done here is to define the IDN and an encoding scheme for 
IDN.  Perhaps there will be more encoding schemes and perhaps there will not.

The only prediction about future IETF work and future Internet development 
that has proved accurate is that predictions prove to be inaccurate.

d/

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