Martin v. L�wis wrote:What is much more relevant is how further constraints in the registry (beyond those imposed by IDNA) get implemented. Only when that is sufficiently settled and deployed, considering *updates* to IDNA should start.
I disagree. The IETF should not wait for any of the registries to do anything before publishing new drafts or RFCs. The registries are not the only other players here. We have application developers and zone administrators depending on our work too.
Fully true. But we are in a real world. If you propose anything again without the support of the Registries you will have a lack of understanding, adherence and support. Also what you will propose will be less reviewed from different point of view and will have more risks to have its own flaws. You will not be able to tell the Registries they shared in the mistake they have to share in the fix. A second blunder and the multilingual internet will disinterest itself from the IETF and work out its own solutions - I think we all know. Which means a split between ASCII Internet and Multilingual Internet. What we all want to avoid, I hope.
The first step is to permit the Registries to operate in this still debated environement. I have asked responses about that and got no answer. I can only infer from your position and of this lack of concern, that this debate is purely theoretical. IETF does not rule but advises.
What are the objections (and BTW were to find described the consquences for a Registry) to Adam and Simon positions?
jfc
