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 03:54 PM 6/21/2002 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Friday, 21 June, 2002 15:03 +0200 Erik Nordmark
> <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com> wrote:
>
> > I think there is a 3rd alternative which is to, unless
> > explicitly overridden elsewhere in the future, apply it
> > everywhere. This can be perfectly well-defined as far as I can
> > tell and it means that any changes can be done with the
> > well-defined basis as a foundation.
>
> Actually, I suggest we have never been able to do that and that
> it is exactly the source of my concern.  We try very hard to
> avoid getting into situations in which we standardize something,
> let it get deployed, and then say "sorry, we are changing that,
> you must do something else in this particular case".

At the end of the movie "War of the Roses", Danny DeVito (playing an 
attorney) says that he is going to offer his potential client some free 
advice, and "when a $1000 per hour attorney offers free advice, you should 
listen."

When John and I agree about an action, the rest of you folks should listen.

To use a whimsical legal phrase, folks are talking about unringing a bell.

The working group needs to focus more narrowly:  we have exactly ONE DNS 
PROBLEM that must have immediate solution:

        Permitting an internationalized form of domain name for business
        cards -- that is, for URLs and email.  These are usually called
        hostnames.

        All other IDN requirements can wait.

So far, the IDN working group has produced nothing that is used.  If the 
working group issues a first, narrow specification, we can make immediate 
progress and offer the community something it desperately needs.  We can 
also learn more about how this all works and then apply it to the next, 
ummmmmmm,,, domain.



> I agree that they are loosely defined.  And that more precise
> definition is better.  But it seems to me that precisely
> defining something to cover things that are not invented yet is
> not the way to go unless it is necessary and we have a clear
> picture.  I.e., I am trying hard to avoid having to predict the
> future or to constrain it.
correct on all counts.

d/

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