Re: [idn] Re: stability

[Erik van der Poel <[e-mail]>]

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> At 02:53 16/03/2005, Erik van der Poel wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Fully true. But we are in a real world. If you propose anything again 
> without the support of the Registries you will have a lack of 
> understanding, adherence and support. Also what you will propose will be 
> less reviewed from different point of view and will have more risks to 
> have its own flaws. You will not be able to tell the Registries they 
> shared in the mistake they have to share in the fix. 

I agree, and I can see why you react in this way to my email, but please 
look again at Martin's email. If we followed Martin's advice, we would 
wait quite a long time before even *considering* updates to IDNA. I 
think it's reasonable to *consider* changes and even to write drafts 
*before* the registries deploy further constraints.

Of course, we must involve the registries in the draft review process.

> The first step is to permit the Registries to operate in this still 
> debated environement.

I'm afraid I don't understand. The registry operators *are* already 
permitted to operate their registries.

> I have asked responses about that and got no 
> answer.

I find it very difficult to respond to your emails because you often 
bring up topics that I don't understand and seem somewhat unrelated, 
such as "PAD". Also, some of your emails seem to talk about a 
revolution, which is very difficult to bring about, and hence unlikely. 
I have made such proposals myself (e.g. displaying the domain name from 
left to right instead of right to left), but others have pointed out 
that such ideas are more in the theoretical realm than the practical 
one, and so I have stopped talking about them.

If you want to achieve consensus, you have to come closer to the rest of 
the group.

Of course, you may claim that this group is itself far removed from the 
real world, but I don't see much evidence of that.

> What are the objections (and BTW were to find described the consquences 
> for a Registry) to Adam and Simon positions?

It is too early to write a description of the consequences for the 
registries, since we haven't even reached a rough consensus on the 
changes to the specs.

Erik