Re: IDNA: is the specification proper, adequate, and complete? (was: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-idna-08.txt)
Dave Crocker <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.idn |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
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:[email protected]> TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850