[idn] IDN WG Summary
"James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc> Tue, 05 June 2001 14:43 UTC
Received: from psg.com (exim@[147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA22552 for <idn-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:43:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 157Ha7-0009zw-00 for idn-data@psg.com; Tue, 05 Jun 2001 07:13:15 -0700
Received: from mail.i-dns.net ([203.126.116.228]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 157Ha6-0009zq-00 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 05 Jun 2001 07:13:14 -0700
Received: from jamessonyvaio (unknown [217.199.232.253]) by mail.i-dns.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B90BFFC07 for <idn@ops.ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 22:15:36 +0800 (SGT)
Message-ID: <016b01c0edc9$9003c730$fde8c7d9@jamessonyvaio>
From: James Seng/Personal <James@Seng.cc>
To: idn@ops.ietf.org
Subject: [idn] IDN WG Summary
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 22:12:29 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The Working Group has been in existence for over 18 months so far. While we made a lot of progress in the these 18 months, we have unfortunately not managed to keep to our original dateline and are way behind schedule. In particular, IDN WG suffers from a symptom common to WGs that exist too long: repeat discussions of old arguments. Like any WG, we have new members joining us at regularly basis and with them, they bring fresh ideas and contributions. OTOH, we also begin to rehash arguments which we thought we have finish with. Attempting to do a summary of the WG would be extremely sensitive but something that we (as working group chairs) have to do if we were to move forward. 1. IDN Matching problem So far, we have one serious proposal: draft-ietf-idn-nameprep. There is also another draft-ietf-idn-jpchar but we do not see it conflicting with Nameprep. Another work been carried out outside the WG: draft-duerst-i18n-norm There are also one undocumented proposal, namely: Dan's Fast-Nameprep (aka Fix the keyboard so there is no bad names). We should try to converge these solutions. 2. IDN Encoding IDN Encoding means over-the-wire encoding of IDN. Here is fun, which we have several proposals including 7-bit *ACE, 8-bit legacy, 8-bit UTF-8 and others. Here, we have to select probably one or more encodings for IDN. draft-ietf-idn-race draft-ietf-idn-sace draft-ietf-idn-trace draft-ietf-idn-brace draft-ietf-idn-lace draft-ietf-idn-utf6 draft-ietf-idn-dude draft-ietf-idn-altdude draft-ietf-idn-dunce draft-ietf-idn-step draft-ietf-idn-amc-ace-m draft-ietf-idn-amc-ace-o draft-ietf-idn-amc-ace-r draft-ietf-idn-amc-ace-w draft-ietf-idn-amc-ace-v draft-jseng-utf5 draft-dkjang-idn UTF-8 UTF-16 UTF-32 Legacy Encodings (GBK, BIG5, ISO8859-X, ISO2022-X, ...) 3. IDN Protocol IDN Protocol refers to a specify possible direction on how the WG decides IDN protocol is going to work general. Some of this IDN Protocol are independent of IDN Encoding and the matching problem. (e.g. IDNA could use UTF-8 over-the-wire). Either way, we have to find a solution here. It is also important to note that some of the following solution cannot be done alone within this Working Group especially if it touches DNS protocol. draft-ietf-idn-idne draft-ietf-idn-udns draft-ietf-idn-icu draft-ietf-idn-dnsii-xxx draft-ietf-idn-idnra draft-ietf-idn-idna draft-ietf-idn-vidn draft-ietf-idn-uname Also, there are some proposals which is more radical which does not fit into the (1) to (3) framework. In particular, we have draft-klensin-dns-role which suggest there is no solution at all in the DNS space but to move it higher. draft-klensin-dns-role draft-klensin-dnsclass0e draft-klensin-i18n-newclass draft-klensin-dns-search 4. Misc These are I-Ds related to the working group which may be move forward as Information RFC or more. At this moment, the working group chairs cannot see any consensus what to do with them yet, except the requirements I-D which we agreed to move it on. draft-ietf-idn-requirements draft-ietf-idn-compare draft-ietf-idn-cjk draft-ietf-idn-version draft-ietf-idn-iptr draft-ietf-idn-aceid draft-ietf-idn-uri draft-ietf-idn-mua draft-masinter-url-i18n This is a broad picture of the complexity of the problem we have. We also noted two major problem in the working group, namely (a) we have too many proposals (b) we do not have enough consensus behind any single proposal. The last strawpoll on IDNA is particularly interesting. With 36/14 poll, we gathered that the WG have strong support for IDNA but it is not sufficient for the WG chairs to declare consensus on IDNA. As such, we recommend that the authors for IDNA to continue to refine their work. And to solve problem (a), ie too many proposals, the chairs has been given advise that eliminating proposals so we have a reduced problem-set is one way to solve it. Given this good advice, we will be putting some of them to be drop from the Working Group in the next few weeks. We would also appreciate if the Authors could obsolete their own work (either they do not feel it is worth pursuing or it is obsolete by newer I-Ds). Hopefully this would put the working group back on track to where we suppose to be heading. Thank you. -James Seng
- RE: [idn] IDN WG Summary Brian W. Spolarich
- [idn] IDN WG Summary James Seng/Personal
- [idn] New ACE to be approved within days? J. William Semich
- Re: [idn] New ACE to be approved within days? Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: [idn] IDN WG Summary Adam M. Costello