The objections from the Taiwanese (non-wg members btw) are noted to the
group.
See http://www.imc.org/idn/mail-archive/msg05977.html
None of them provide any useful technical information to the last call.
Neither are the protest within the IETF process as described in RFC2026
Section 6.5.
I have to disagree with this.
first of all, there's no such thing as a wg member. anybody who
contributes to the discussion is as much a member as anyone else.
I meant to say they are not subscriber of the wg.
(btw, it is not funny to get 353 bounce mails, sorting them out and manually
replying to each of them.)
second, this is useful technical input, and the problems with
TC/SC equivalence are serious. even if they can't be fixed
reasonably with the current DNS protocol, they do have some
bearing on the applicability of IDN.
It is useful technical input on the first time.
By the 353th time, someone got to ask what else are they contributing?
third, I don't see why you say these are not within the IETF process,
but I find no justification for that statement. if nothing else,
the spirit of IETF has always been to consider any constructive input,
even if it were not presented in exactly the correct way.
It is a protest and appeal against the last call. The IETF process specify
the exact process to do so in RFC2026 Section 6.5.
-James Seng