RE: [idn] NSI Multilingual Testbed Information (fwd)

[bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich)]

Let me put this another way:

The IETF has taken two identifiable actions WRT UTF-8:

1. It has designated UTF-8 as the preferred protocol for IDN in the BCP,
RFC 2277 (No matter whether used in a Standard or in a BCP, the word "MUST"
looks like strong language to me);

2. It has actually set a standard for (or has put on a standards track)
UTF-8 itself under RFC 2279.

I have not been able to find any actions by IETF WRT an ACE for IDN, either
as a stand-alone Standard in and of itself, or as a recommended protocol
(not to mention a "MUST") in a BCP.

So, apart from the fact that UTF-8 has much to recommend it technically for
use in IDNs, is it so surprising that the decision would be made to use
UTF-8 in the protocol when developing an implementation of IDN?

Bill Semich
.NU Domain

At 07:12 PM 8/26/00 -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>At 18:20 26/08/00, J. William Semich wrote:
>
>>Semantics aside, if the IESG is applying these policies, 
>
>        There is no evidence to support a claim that IESG is requiring
>use of UTF-8 in all cases.  The RFC does NOT say that its required
>in all cases, it makes a suggestion, not a hard requirement.
>Policies have exceptions, by definition.  This is part of the
>reason it is a BCP, not a standard.
>
>        UTF-8 is one choice.  It might be a reasonable choice.
>It is not mandated by the IESG or IETF at this time for IDNs.
>Please support your use of UTF-8 on technical grounds (I'm sure
>you have these), rather than trying to twist the meaning of the
>RFC on UTF-8 and making some sort of political/policy argument.
>
>>then, as a
>>developer, these are the policies upon which I should base my code - one of
>>which is a "MUST" on support for UTF-8 in the protocol. 
>
>        You have more choices about how to base your code than you 
>acknowledge above, while still being fully consistent with the
>RFC on UTF-8.
>
>        I'll also echo Paul's comments.  This is an IETF list.  
>Please use IETF terminology regarding the status of IETF RFCs 
>on IETF lists.  That RFC is a BCP, not any sort of standard.  
>Claiming otherwise repeatedly does not by itself change reality.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Ran
>rja@inet.org
>
>
>