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 02:43 AM 6/23/2002 +0900, Soobok Lee wrote:
> Each TLD registry can decide which one it deploy among "directory" approach,
A decision to use an 8-bit encoding scheme will be rather useless, since 
there is no standard specification for doing it.  The absence of a standard 
means there is no interoperability.



> Such directory approach allows each TLD registries to adopt its own 
> comparison rules,
Oh?  Different rules for each TLD?  What about different for each level in 
the hierarchy, too?

You appear to be intent on making architecture choices that ensure long 
term non-interoperability.  having many choices creates an architecture 
that does not scale.



> Most TLD registries feel strongly the need to add  native labels in *both* 
> UTF8 and local charsets,
"local charsets"?  Whatever does that mean?

And UTF-8 is merely an encoding scheme.  It is not the "native" 
representation of the character set.

For that matter, I suspect most TLD registries neither know nor care about 
the technical details of UTF-8 vs. ACE, or the like.  They merely want a 
functioning, standard, interoperable IDN.



>  The directory approach can fulfill these needs clealy and safely.
By the way, the DNS is not a directory system.  This has been explained 
many times.

d/


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