Hmm...it seem to me that Lee is proposing something new, a directory approach which includes various features etc. Therefore, I suggest Lee write down his ideas in a new internet draft as a basis for further discussion.
-James Seng ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Soobok Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "IETF idn working group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 3:39 AM Subject: Re: [idn] IDNA: is the specification proper, adequate, and complete? (was: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-idna-08.txt) > At 02:43 AM 6/23/2002 +0900, Soobok Lee wrote: > >Each TLD registry can decide which one it deploy among "directory" approach, > > A decision to use an 8-bit encoding scheme will be rather useless, since > there is no standard specification for doing it. The absence of a standard > means there is no interoperability. > > > >Such directory approach allows each TLD registries to adopt its own > >comparison rules, > > Oh? Different rules for each TLD? What about different for each level in > the hierarchy, too? > > You appear to be intent on making architecture choices that ensure long > term non-interoperability. having many choices creates an architecture > that does not scale. > > > >Most TLD registries feel strongly the need to add native labels in *both* > >UTF8 and local charsets, > > "local charsets"? Whatever does that mean? > > And UTF-8 is merely an encoding scheme. It is not the "native" > representation of the character set. > > For that matter, I suspect most TLD registries neither know nor care about > the technical details of UTF-8 vs. ACE, or the like. They merely want a > functioning, standard, interoperable IDN. > > > > The directory approach can fulfill these needs clealy and safely. > > By the way, the DNS is not a directory system. This has been explained > many times. > > d/ > > > ---------- > Dave Crocker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com> > tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850 > > >
