Re: Hi, I'm

John C Klensin <> Mon, 10 December 2001 00:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from by (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <> (original mail from; Sun, 09 Dec 2001 19:01:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <> for (ORCPT; Sun, 09 Dec 2001 19:01:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <> for (ORCPT; Sun, 09 Dec 2001 19:01:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <> for; Sun, 09 Dec 2001 19:01:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 16DDq9-000Njc-00; Sun, 09 Dec 2001 23:58:38 +0000
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 18:57:54 -0500
From: John C Klensin <>
Subject: Re: Hi, I'm
In-reply-to: <>
To: Jinhyun Bae <>
Message-id: <>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.1 (Win32)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
References: <>
List-Owner: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Help: <>, <>
List-Id: <>


Sorry for not responding to you sooner.  I needed to study the
document and read it several times.

The document does not meet the criteria I listed last week of
being structured against the "dns-search-02" framework or of
criticising that document, so it is not appropriate for the
Monday IRNSS agenda.  It is also too much structured as a
statement of what you can done, rather than a critical review of
strengths and weaknesses of this particular keyword approach, to
be suitable for the BOF.

I hope that you will participate actively in tomorrow's
discussions.  The main objective of the meeting is not to present
particular work --at this point, I hope that everyone on the
IRNSS list has read your draft or will do so before morning-- but
to begin to exchange ideas and ask questions about all of these
proposals and how to move forward with solutions around which the
IETF can reach consensus.  The particular presentations that are
being made have been chosen, not because they are preferred, but
because they appear to provide the best starting points for a
useful discussion.  And your perspective and experience should be
very valuable in that discussion.

I would make several additional suggestions/ requests:

(i) Please send this, or a revision that you prepare soon, in as
an Internet Draft.  Many of us have been interested in what
Netpia is doing in this space since your early days, and this
document apparently answers at least part of that question.

(ii) The draft leaves several important questions unanswered.  We
should discuss what those questions are, and how they might be
addressed (either in a document or in your product).  If
feasible, it would be desirable to get those explanations into a
revised version of the draft.

(iii) I think you will find IETF fairly unsympathetic to the use
of locally-extended versions of Unicode (or ISO 10646).  You have
seen some symptoms of this in discussions in the IDN WG, but the
problems and issues run much more deeply.

(iv) If any of your suggestions or techniques are considered
proprietary, please be sure that you have the appropriate
Intellectual Property Rights statements on file with the
Secretariat, as required by RFC 2026.

Many thanks for the draft, I found it helpful and educational.


--On Friday, 07 December, 2001 11:40 +0900 Jinhyun Bae
<> wrote:

> Dear the concerned,
> I'd like to have a chance to discuss the Draft of
> at Internet Resource Name Search Service BOF this 52nd IETF.
> Here I attach the address of Daft
> (
> xt) and file itself.
> Thanks for your attention.
> With best regards,
> Jinhyun Bae