On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 13:00 +0100, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 07:32 03/03/2006, Martin Duerst wrote:
You mix up technology and policy. Technology-wise, the Chinese are not
doing anything else than anybody else (read IDNA/Punycode,...),
plus probably some 8-bit stuff based on GB2312 and maybe even UTF-8
for backwards compatibility with earlier experiments.
Dear Martin,
It would be no use to tell you that you confuse many things. I would
only suggest you to test and understand rather than guessing. The
Chinese set-up is very simple. But it belongs to a standard (every
other global network system) culture which is not (yet?) the IETF culture.
well, what Martin writes makes sense to me. I'm afraid I have no idea
what you are trying to say, however.
(Speaking in Phillip's terms, the IETF has already defined how
to add a 'j' key to a telephone, and most telephones already
have one, or an equivalent.)
I do not understand what Phillips means?
a complex number has a real and an imaginary part, and the imaginary
part is denoted with a "j" (well, engineers use "j", mathematicians tend
to use "i"). Phillip noted that MIT could use complex telephone numbers
for internal use without impacting worldwide telephone routing, since
they'd use an orthogonal name space.
ICANN did their job. Their IDN list is Two years old. They had an IDN
committee in parallel of the WG-IDNA. The list has 2 mails. The
committee was lost. We discussed that extensively at the WG-IDNA. The
documentation is as confuse as unworkable. Phillip's corporation had
invested a lot of money, time and efforts in this. They had the
customer base, signed a significant number of registrants, and toured
the world to explain and motivate Registrars, ISPs and ccTLDs. They
were not alone. They only met scepticism, distinterest and lack of
registrant renewal.
I don't know the history, but the recent reports
http://icann.org/topics/gnso-initial-rpt-new-gtlds-19feb06.pdf
and
http://www.icann.org/general/idn-guidelines-22feb06.htm
seem promising to me. there is wide consensus that new gTLD should be
added, and allowing IDNA labels as gTLD will force its way through.
adding xn--fiqs8s, xn--55qx5d and xn--io0a7i to the root servers may not
happen tomorrow, but I'm sure the process will take us there in
reasonable time. but this is an ICANN issue, and not related to the
protocols at all. the protocols have all the support we need to
implement whatever policy is decided.
The problem is in the RFC. Nowhere else.
which RFC?
--
Kjetil T.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf