IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [idn] Re: stability

Erik van der Poel <erik@vanderpoel.org> Wed, 16 March 2005 02:04 UTC

Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA15341 for <idn-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:04:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1DBNjF-0001vg-54 for idn-data@psg.com; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:53:45 +0000
Received: from [207.115.63.101] (helo=pimout2-ext.prodigy.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1DBNj9-0001uw-Ld for idn@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:53:44 +0000
Received: from [10.1.1.2] (adsl-64-174-147-206.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net [64.174.147.206]) by pimout2-ext.prodigy.net (8.12.10 milter /8.12.10) with ESMTP id j2G1r1MW405646; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:53:05 -0500
Message-ID: <4237917D.9080507@vanderpoel.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:53:01 -0800
From: Erik van der Poel <erik@vanderpoel.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "\"Martin v. Löwis\"" <martin@v.loewis.de>
CC: Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com>, Mark Davis <mark.davis@jtcsv.com>, idn@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [idn] Re: stability
References: <421B8484.3070802@vanderpoel.org> <D872CCF059514053ECF8A198@scan.jck.com> <421D8411.9030006@vanderpoel.org> <p06210208be4390618c81@[192.168.0.101]> <421E0D0C.2000309@vanderpoel.org> <p06210202be43c3888991@[192.168.0.101]> <E07CE813AD23B2D95DA0C740@scan.jck.com> <421E30F2.1040408@vanderpoel.org> <0E7F74C71945B923C52211F3@scan.jck.com> <421EA0C9.1010500@vanderpoel.org> <00a401c51af3$7863aae0$030aa8c0@DEWELL> <A574CA1BE87BFDA3C2A1AC0E@scan.jck.com> <42322CE2.4040509@vanderpoel.org> <4232B2FD.1080104@vanderpoel.org> <4232BA56.5090001@vanderpoel.org> <iluk6odazwb.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <00e801c528a8$99ad37d0$72703009@sanjose.ibm.com> <ilull8qb5n5.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <42367B63.6080300@vanderpoel.org> <4237450A.9010901@v.loewis.de> <423754F3.50405@vanderpoel.org> <ilumzt47ezc.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <42375C9E.8040001@v.loewis.de>
In-Reply-To: <42375C9E.8040001@v.loewis.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on psg.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.1
Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> What is much more relevant is how further constraints in the registry
> (beyond those imposed by IDNA) get implemented. Only when that is
> sufficiently settled and deployed, considering *updates* to IDNA
> should start.

I disagree. The IETF should not wait for any of the registries to do 
anything before publishing new drafts or RFCs. The registries are not 
the only other players here. We have application developers and zone 
administrators depending on our work too.

Erik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email