[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] Chinese Domain Name Consortium (CDNC) Declaration
We are rethrashing issues which have been discussed and concluded.
So please, lets stop this thread, or at least bring it offline. There
are more important things to discuss at the moment, like completing the
The last call _will_ conclude on 11th feb. Time are better spend with
substainted points references to the last call drafts then to bring up
ps: A man whom I admired a lot, for his writing, his personality and
view of life once wrote these famous words: "Violence is the last resort
of the incompetent".
----- Original Message -----
From: "tsenglm@計網中心.中大.tw" <email@example.com>
To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <email@example.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 5:53 AM
Subject: Re: [idn] Chinese Domain Name Consortium (CDNC) Declaration
> Dear Paul Hoffman:
> > At 2:23 AM +0800 2/10/02, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > >Can you specify more clearly ? we all like to know what is the
> > Sure. The "reference" is personal conversations that folks from CDNC
> > had with other people active in the IDN WG during the Salt Lake City
> > meeting. Many people met with CDNC members in Salt Lake City, and
> > many of us heard similar statements in our discussions.
> > > 1. make more money from registration
> > People from both CNNIC and TWNIC have said "we cannot do a 2^n
> > registration solution because we need to charge end users for each
> > name in the zone".
> Are you sure you do not make any mistake in these
> In SLT , I have heard from Director . Mao
> talk to John Klensin , making more money is not the goal of CNNIC , so
> can accept the delay of CJK deployment to protect all CJK users.
> TWNIC Prof. W.S. Chen is not in SLT , I can make sure it is also the
> answer as CNNIC .
> > Of course, you do not need to charge per name: you
> > can charge per group of names that come from a single base name. But
> > the fact that this argument still comes up leads one to think that
> > maybe you want to charge per name even though doing that will hurt
> > the Chinese people.
> > > 2. it is impossible to solve TC/SC
> > I never said that; I have said the opposite many times. What I said
> > was that it is impossible to get the solutions proposed in the
> > Internet Drafts approved by the IETF because of their obvious
> > technical and political flaws, all of which have been openly
> > discussed in the WG. During meetings in Salt Lake City, CDNC members
> > agreed with this and said that they would pursue a good
> > Traditional-Simplified solution outside the confines of the IETF.
> Sorry , I do not see discussions of TC/SC related to
> technique of Validation , HSE , Multi-Case ACE in here . I am also
> , why I have not this solution ? We hope this WG temporarily
> CJK deployment by code point inhibition to let CJK area can get a
> solution if this WG is so hurry to pass all, because it is
> irreversible for user to register CJK name.
> > > 3. registration policy can solve all ...
> > No one has ever said that "registration policy can solve all ...".
> > What has been said, and agreed to by TWNIC people, is that in the
> > absence of Traditional-Simplifed mapping in IDN, registration policy
> > can serve end users. It will not be consistent, so it will not serve
> > them as well as it would if we could have put it into IDN. Of
> > doing T-S registration can serve users better than anything that
> > appeared in the tsconv drafts because it will not be limited to 1:1
> > mapping, and it will allow mapping that comes from humans instead of
> > limited tables.
> I think people from TWNIC recognizes that to solve
> problems , it need multiple stage/level to cooperate . 1-1 mapping
> are proposed in the draft that can be applied in the mapping after
> and before Puny code encoding. 1-n mapping need more time to discuss
> select one of them as 1-1 mapping or no any mapping , if
> assigned by language expert , the registration approach can help to
> all of them or select few of them by register.
> All the argument in here is " 1-1 mapping should be
> which level ?" 1. inside IDNA 2. Outside-IDNA: a client local module
> level-2 server like IRNSS and what is the connection interface
> this module with IDNA, 3. Registration policy .