Re: [idn] draft about Tradition and Simplified Chinese Conversion[version01]

Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net> Sun, 18 November 2001 01:50 UTC

Received: from psg.com (exim@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA01706 for <idn-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 20:50:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.33 #1) id 165Gyf-000LF4-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 17:42:33 -0800
Received: from 216-220-241-232.midmaine.com ([216.220.241.232] helo=nic-naa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 165Gye-000LEw-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 17:42:32 -0800
Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.nic-naa.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id fAI1iJK12449; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 20:44:19 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net)
Message-Id: <200111180144.fAI1iJK12449@nic-naa.net>
To: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
cc: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>, James Seng/Personal <jseng@pobox.org.sg>, "tsenglm@計網中心.中大.tw" <tsenglm@cc.ncu.edu.tw>, Erin Chen <erin@twnic.net.tw>, liana Ye <liana.ydisg@juno.com>, idn@ops.ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net
Subject: Re: [idn] draft about Tradition and Simplified Chinese Conversion[version01]
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 18 Nov 2001 02:27:23 +0100." <2188758.1006050443@localhost>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 20:44:19 -0500
From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

Patrik,

I don't buy your reasoning, in either case (guarantees of UTC or JET work
product immutability), unless nameprep has a dependency relationship on a 
reference to a table, rather than to the table itself, at the point at
which the relationship was made.

Take a look at rfc954, it references the DDN, SRI-NIC, nets 10 and 26, all
as if they are immutable. In spite of the brokenness of the formal external 
reference, the referant, a protocol on port 43 and some data, continue to
exist.

I don't much care if the next big thing sweeps the UTC off into oblivion,
treating them as if they were the ITU in a working group is peculiar, and
doing the same with JET is just as odd. Sweeping the UTC off to oblivion
may take more, or less, than the next big thing ;-), but it is a _liaison_
problem, not a WG problem. Its Scott's problem, not "ours".

Eric