Re: [idn] Document Status?

["Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>]

on 9/3/2002 9:27 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 08:36 PM 9/3/2002 -0500, Eric A. Hall wrote:
>
>> on 9/3/2002 4:16 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
>>
>>> 10 years, Eric.  10 years.  So far.  And still counting.
>>
>> What is this comment supposed to mean exactly?
>
> It means that talking about such work for MIME does not mean much,
> since we still do not have a demonstration that it is particularly
> popular yet.

Binary transfers aren't popular with HTTP?

I still don't understand the "10 years" comment, either. RFC 1341 defined
a Content-Transfer-Encoding type of BINARY in 1992, while RFC 1830 defined
a binary transfer mode for SMTP in 1995, while RFC 1945 did the same for
HTTP in 1996. That is ~four years between publication of the original spec
and the two most common protocols.

If you originally meant to say that i18n DNS *should* be just like MIME,
then I would agree with that statement for as far as it would carry us.
That would of course entail reducing IDNA down to a simple codec and
defining alternative codecs that protocols could deploy according to their
usage models. It seems that you agree with part of this but not the other
part, although I'm unable to figure out where the line is.

Can you state your issues without using this metaphor?

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/