Dave Crocker wrote:
> We are doing engineering, not science. Perhaps that disparity of view > is the source of some difficulties among participants. It is certainly clear that scientific analysis is being sacrificed in favor of agenda manipulation and beauracracy, yes. > uDNS a) is not a complete specification, and b) imposes operational > requirements that are not viable in the existing DNS infrastructure. IPv6 is different from IPv4, OSPF was different from RIP, IMAP is different from POP, why is anybody surprised that a UTF-8 DNS which provides a top-to-bottom internationalized DNS is going to be different from a hostname-restricted IDNA? Of course, last time this was brought up for discussion, the beauracracy called technical analysis off-topic. No surprise you want to formalize such a position through agenda reconstruction. Color me unimpressed. > How very strange. Some of the proposals do not want a single technical > specification, or they do not want to stop researching? What's so wrong with multiple complementary specifications? Why are you committed to a single specification which only serves a single objective of legacy compatibility and which does so at the expense of every protocol and application yet to be written? -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
