At 17:22 09/02/2005, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 09 February, 2005 14:30 +0100 "JFC (Jefsey)
Morfin" <jefsey(_at_)jefsey(_dot_)com> wrote:
> The MINC has understood it and prepared as test-bed.
These two assertions are simply wrong. MINC has always
advocated, or seemed to advocate, "IDNs are the solution" and
"IDNs no matter what, no waiting" approaches.
Dear John,
sometimes you answer too fast. I noticed this is often when I start saying
we agree :-)
MINC has never entered into IDN design - as you may recall James Seng was
the one who (re)presented the concept. They have _accepted_ IDN, after so
many delayed years they desperately need solutions, any solution which
works. But they identified IDN as a non turnkey solution. So they issued an
RFP for a serious test bed proposal. We considered responding it, but were
too short on resources and already concluding the dot-root effort. Asian
people with a totally different script than ASCII were obviously better
suited.
We are in a real world: this to the concerned parties to be empowered with
the decisions concerning their own usage and to take over. This is what
Harald said for IPv6, I wish he would have said it for IDN and languages
too. This is why I ask.
> ICANN had
> understood it and requested an IETF supervised DNS
> experimentation, I think I was alone in carrying, with a few
30
> European test root servers organized in three root trees
> (dot-root program), respecting and adding to the ICANN test
> criteria.
And ICANN never requested such experimentation,
Please read ICP-3. A very well made document BTW.
May be the confusion comes from that you only consider IDNs only, when I
consider the whole DNS issue.
and especially not experimentation involving alternate roots.
What do you imply be that???
I quoted the experience of the defunct TLDA in a different context: how to
avoid a TLD/keyword conflicting system proliferation and how to manage the
pollution (you may recall that the first technical conflict of some
magnitude has been initiated by ICANN .biz [which preferred ".info" to
".web" to avoid a too big pollution problem for a test] and that Vint Cerf
eventually accepted and documented in here the resulting risks).
Please read what ICANN says. They consider that eventually experimentation
could lead to other solution than a single authoritative root file. We
confirmed the "single authoritative" had obviously to stay, but the file
was to be structured into a matrix and worked on the way it can/will work
respecting the national empowerment, sovereignty and security. The ITU has
obviously made the same reasoning, however I do not know if they carried an
equivalent experimentation, what would be interesting.
Anyway, coming DNS is far more complex. And this is a detail in the whole
picture. It only served us to understand that and how the transition could
occur in a seamless manner. The question is does the IETF want to address
the real world's RFP or continue selling what it has in stock? These are
two options wroth a debate as one may bet the world is wrong and will
continue the way it works today.
But the calendar asks for the decision to be made now.
jfc
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf