headers
John C Klensin | 2 Apr 23:53

Making progress on IDN

IDN WG participants,

In a separate note, I've expressed severe disagreement with Dave
Crocker's "stop discussing this, it is off topic" notes and
comments.  But I am in agreement with him as considering much of
the current discussion to be a useless waste of time.

With the understanding that the following is strictly my
personal opinion...

The charter fairly clearly does not extend to "fixing" mail, or
URLs, or HTTP, or Unicode.  Arguments that the proposed solution
won't work properly in those applications may be relevant, but
please either make new ones or see below.

Substantively, most of the current discussions are going around
in circles we have toured before.  They have either gotten
nowhere or been rejected.  Repeating the arguments doesn't
contribute to understanding, and doesn't seem to be convincing
anyone, nor does repeating explanations of why particular ideas
are infeasible or inappropriate seem to be convincing anyone.
That is a fairly strong argument for stopping the discussions.
It is, perhaps, an even stronger argument for not responding
when people try to bring the same old arguments up over and over
again.

Procedurally, the Co-chairs have sent the specs off to the IESG,
presumably with an assertion of consensus.    I am not
recommending this in any way, but, if people believe that
assertion is incorrect and no consensus exists or that the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
John C Klensin | 2 Apr 23:13

Re: URL encoding in html page

--On Tuesday, 02 April, 2002 09:27 -0800 Dave Crocker
<dhc <at> dcrocker.net> wrote:

> At 10:57 AM 4/2/2002 -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>> While the IETF does not design or standardize user interfaces,
>> it seems to me that discussion about user interfaces and what
>> functions they do, or do not, require is entirely appropriate.
>> If we specify a wire ("network interchange") standard that is
>> intended to provide some functionality, and that functionality
>> cannot be rationally implemented in a user interface,
> 
> The only problem is that this extended discussion is that it
> is not serving that purpose.
> 
> It is not assessing the UI issues correctly, it is confusing
> protocol issues with implementation issues, AND it is trying
> to specify UI designs.  None of which is constructive to an
> IETF working group effort.
> 
> Frankly, both of these problems are persistent in IDN.  We
> start with a topic that has a generic relevance to the work --
> although we often engage in that discussion far past the time
>...
> John, as you well know, IETF working group progress requires
> constantly enforcing the scope restrictions specified by the
> charter.  Ensuring forward progress often has more to do with
> limiting scope of discussion than with anything else.
> 
> Perhaps it is silly of me to worry about the difference
> between pleasant academic discussions, versus practical
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dave Crocker | 3 Apr 02:12

Re: URL encoding in html page

At 04:13 PM 4/2/2002 -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>  -- this
>collection of cats seems determined to not be herded, and I
>doubt that either of us could do much better were we sitting in
>the Chair.

indeed.

>I wish, too, that the WG would simply omit something and go
>silent -- what is disturbing to me about this round of
>discussions is how much they are going over old ground,

yup.

>What I am objecting to is your tactics.  I don't think we make
>progress by making up rules and trying to enforce them, or by
>bending the rules to your (or even my) personal convenience.

I agree.  Therefore it is a good thing that that was not what I am trying 
to do.

And as responded earlier, this has nothing to do with my personal 
preference.  Personally I find discussions of usability issues quite 
delightful, since they permit me to indulge in my original formal training.

What is, instead, at issue is working group progress and 
productivity.  This is more mundane than making things personal, but it is 
also more relevant.

>   To
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
James Seng | 3 Apr 02:43
Picon

Re: Re: 7 bits forever!

My apologises.

Let me correct myself: DM-IDNS or UDNS are both good starting point, one
which the UTF-8 supportor group should go aside and finish it.

-James Seng

> James Seng wrote:
>
> > It is also okay if you wish to start from UDNS, a draft which I find
> > it is reasonable altho incomplete. Talk to Oscarsson if you wish but
> > lets put it down in writing.
>
> Dan should certainly be encouraged to resubmit his UDNS proposal, but in
> the meantime, I would like to point out that draft-hall-dm-idns-00.txt is
> the dual-mode draft that is currently in the WG pool. Perhaps your
> confusion stems from the I-D-N.net web site, which still lists UDNS as an
> active document, and which does not list DM-IDNS.
>
> [For the record, message <016c01c14c76$ea176c20$dd00a8c0 <at> jamessonyvaio>
> shows that UDNS was removed from the pool on Oct 4, 2001 while message
> <023301c172ee$62f4fc50$0701000a <at> jamessonyvaio> shows that DM-IDNS was
> accepted into the WG pool on Nov 22, 2001. Don't rely on the web site.]
>
> --
> Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
> Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
James Seng | 3 Apr 02:41
Picon

Re: Re: 7 bits forever!

And you miss the point completely too.

IETF move forward with draft. Repeatively say "i want utf-8, i want it now"
after the first time are just noise.

Write your draft. It is make sense, then support will come.

-James Seng

> I think you missed the point completely.  The point, as Keld have
mentioned
> is that there are people, who believes that it is beneficial to have UTF8
> option, I being one of them and Keld being one of them, and it is a fact
> that cannot be ignored and should not be ignored.  From my interpretation
of
> your previous words, you also believe that it is beneficial to go beyond
> ASCII.  That, is my point and please dont try to confuse the message with
> the means!  Human language is not machine language and you have to
> understand the context before you can get the message.  If you cant
> understand this simple depth and intricacy of human interaction and
> communication, I cant help you.
>
> The exercise is to establish a meaningful support before I waste my time
> working on a draft if no one wants to talk about it.
> I have a draft of a draft inplace for UDNA, and I am updating it as we
> continue to discuss some of the elements of it on the list.  I think it
> makes more sense this way, than to throw something in here fresh.  Also I
> think it would be beneficial to have a draft on IDNX (IDN Transition).  So
> please stop distrupting the discussion of a good discussion here.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
ben | 3 Apr 04:39

Re: Making progress on IDN

Many IDN WG participants actually do keep silent- they wait
patiently/politely for the day IDNs work... and wait... and wait...
and wait some more... and then still wait some more.... and wait...
and wait again...

I am sure glad that the IESG has a procedure/schedule to follow and
there is going to be an end to this.  (Whether the answer from the
IESG is "yes" or "no" really is not the point, YES OR NO IS FINE- I
JUST WANT AN ANSWER.)  Otherwise I am serious going to doing something
about changing the name from IETF to PGTF (Peanut Gallery Task Force.)

Thanks,
Ben

----- Original Message -----
From: "John C Klensin" <klensin <at> jck.com>
To: <idn <at> ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 4:53 PM
Subject: [idn] Making progress on IDN

> IDN WG participants,
>
> In a separate note, I've expressed severe disagreement with Dave
> Crocker's "stop discussing this, it is off topic" notes and
> comments.  But I am in agreement with him as considering much of
> the current discussion to be a useless waste of time.
>
> With the understanding that the following is strictly my
> personal opinion...
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John C Klensin | 3 Apr 05:27

Re: URL encoding in html page

--On Tuesday, 02 April, 2002 16:12 -0800 Dave Crocker
<dhc <at> dcrocker.net> wrote:

>...
>>   To
>> take one of the clearer examples, I found the "user interface"
>> discussion during the Minneapolis "keyword" BOF interesting
>> and helpful,
> 
> 1.  I suppose it is heartening to hear that someone found the
> Keyword BOF enlightening.  All I can do is applaud your skills
> at extracting benefit.
> 
> 2.  Perhaps the Keyword BOF has some relevance to this DNS
> working group, but it escaped me in that BOF and it escapes me
> now.
>...

Again, I was commenting exclusively on the tactic of trying to
cut off discussion by making over-broad assertions about what
the IETF does or does not permit groups to do, what charters
prohibit, etc.   I mentioned the keyword BOF because there
seemed to be to be a pattern and it illustrated the pattern.

> The goal of requirements is frequently in a charter and is
> just dandy for early-stage working group effort.  To the
> extent that anyone feels that it is worth reviewing and
> writing formal IDN working group requirements, that might even
> be OK.  However the current thread has not been attempting
> that, nor is such a goal typical at such a late stage, usually
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dave Crocker | 3 Apr 09:47

Re: URL encoding in html page

At 10:27 PM 4/2/2002 -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>Again, I was commenting exclusively on the tactic of trying to
>cut off discussion by making over-broad assertions about what
>the IETF does or does not permit groups to do, what charters
>prohibit,

Over-broad?  OK.  Then consider responding to the specifics I provided.

>  etc.   I mentioned the keyword BOF because there
>seemed to be to be a pattern and it illustrated the pattern.

"Pattern?" Do you mean the pattern of your objecting when you do not agree 
with a citation of IETF practise?

Alas, John, in the IETF the plebeians are allowed to know and contribute to 
management discussions.  Some of us even have quite a bit of experience 
writing IETF process specifications, being area directors, and/or chairing 
working groups.  Consequently, quite a few of us know quite a bit about 
IETF practise.  And we are allowed to cite that knowledge.  (Feel free to 
cite rules to the contrary.)

>   But the formal
>determination of relevance is a WG Chair or AD problem.

Formal determination?  Glad you included the word formal.  Your objection 
was not to my making a formal determination, since I did not make a formal 
determination.

So we are left with your again citing a point that is not relevant.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Erik Nordmark | 3 Apr 12:26
Picon

Re: Re: 7 bits forever!

> Dan should certainly be encouraged to resubmit his UDNS proposal, but in
> the meantime, I would like to point out that draft-hall-dm-idns-00.txt is
> the dual-mode draft that is currently in the WG pool. Perhaps your
> confusion stems from the I-D-N.net web site, which still lists UDNS as an
> active document, and which does not list DM-IDNS.

And for those that are looking at other IDNA to UTF-8 in DNS transitional
schemes it would be useful to look at the open issue regarding DNSSEC
that I pointed out about draft-hall-dm-idns-00.txt a while back.

I suspect that all such transitional schemes will have the same issue
when DNSSEC is used to provide integrity of the RRsets: can't depends
on servers synthesing records in general and can't have caching resolvers
modify the queries and/or responses.

   Erik
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Erik Nordmark | 3 Apr 12:36
Picon

Re: Re: 7 bits forever!

> That's what me and Edmon has been talking about all the time, we need ACE as
> transition and move to UTF8 as smooth as we can. So an internet draft for
> this transition is needed, we will be posting a draft about this soon.

Instead of a brand new proposal I'd be more interested in finding out
how you can address the DNSSEC issues I pointed out in
draft-hall-dm-idns-00.txt and how you would be different than the techniques
in that draft.

   Erik
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |

Gmane