Normally I wont bother with a reply on this, but: 1. When I speak as a co-chair, I will normally do so. Until then, I am a wg member like everyone else, entitled with my opinion. Do not confuse my various hats. I have too many of them, enough for you put my words into other context which is inappropriate.
2. Suggest you read the original proposal on two prefix *first* then maybe you could post something more technical constructive. Obviously from your questions, you have not even readLee's original proposal on two prefix. -James Seng ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Seng/Personal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Soobok Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [idn] Re: suggestion: two prefices scheme for unassigned code points treatments. > Co-chair James Seng wrote to Soobok Lee: > > > Other may be too polite to say this but this proposal is so absurb that > > I don't even know where to start. > > It is the job of a chair of an IETF WG have access to sufficient expertise > to "know where to start", and usually it is a plus if the chair is civil. > > > [snip section on two prefix] > > > halfbaked idea. welcome any corrections and suggestions. > > > > You got this part right tho. > > When a contributor to the IETF sollicits "corrections and suggestions", > he or she is working in the spirit of the IETF, which fundamentally is > a body which coordinates and harmonizes "corrections and suggestions" > (aka "interoperation") between network infrastructure implementors through > a formal specification process we refer to as "drafting protocols". > > Anyone who fails to understand specification of at least two independent > interoperable implementations from different code bases, with sufficient > successful operational experience, is the core criteria for an IETF memo > to be a draft standard, fails also to understand that only constructive > engagement between implementors leads to an interoperable outcome. There > is no place for non-constructive "wit", particularly in a chair. > > > Suggest you go work on it further. Do not think of this as a problem of > > "how can I get reordering into IDN" and forget the other issues of > > general use of domain names, behavior and stability. > > Exactly how does transformations on code-blocks at some point within the > proposed framework (e.g., unicode, nameprep, reordering (tc,sc,jc,kc), > amc-z|utf-8) have a non-interoperable manifestation as "general use of > domain names, behavior and stability"? > > Eric >
