----- Original Message ----- From: "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Oh sure, it lets registrars *sell* domains quickly, but its > > success with the user community hinges on every application in > > the world being upgraded to perform conversion. Furthermore, > > it is known that this will be a disruptive process which will > > absolutely cause interoperability failures. There is nothing > > fast or resolute about this. The only thing going for it is > > that it is backwards compatible. While that is a necessary > > attribute of any solution, it is not by itself a "quick fix" > > for anybody other than domain resellers. > > Again, I agree. But domain resellers, others who believe that > having "multilingual names" --somehow-- quickly are important, > and the fear that, if the WG doesn't do something... Right > Now... various sorts of interoperability catastrophies would > occur, have been the sources of huge pressures on the WG to try > to do _something_ that can be deployed quickly. And "deployed" > has been defined in that context by ability to put names in > tables and get them back out.
I have never seen any of such written threat or pressure appear in this WG. maybe, behind the curtain: "Publish the RFC, Right now! if not, we will balkanize the DNS!". For what reason should we be so generous to this kind of pressure? I can't believe any registries make such threats. Most of them promise they will switch to/adhrere to IETF-approve IDN standards in their homepages. In the same time, from the opposite group of consumers and countries, there has been public and written *strong pressure* on this WG to produce more mature and stable and interoperrable and long-term-safe solutions. For what reason should we be so harsh on this appeal ? > > One can believe that pattern was either good or bad, but I think > it is indisputable that the WG has been operating under pressure > --quite large by IETF averages-- to produce some solution > quickly. Do you say that above standardization pattern was bad ?
