6 Nov 07:24
Re: Moving the IDN RFCs from Proposed to Draft Standards
John C Klensin <klensin <at> jck.com>
2003-11-06 06:24:06 GMT
2003-11-06 06:24:06 GMT
Paul, I have delayed writing this note in the hope that someone else would take the lead -- I'm tired of being the bad guy with regard to IDNA, which I basically support. But a number of conversations during the last week have convinced me that it is important that something be said, so, two issues: (1) It was my understanding of the agreements when the IDN documents were approved that, when they went to Draft, the Draft versions would incorporate a better statement of applicability and scope than the original versions and, in particular, would incorporate the gist of the "IESG Statement" on IDN applicability and missing pieces. That agreement does not appear to be reflected in the text of the new drafts. (2) Efforts to deploy IDNs seem to be hitting some user problems as those users see more of punycode then makes them happy. Of course, for many end users, seeing punycode at all, ever, is too much. Since the purpose of IDNA is to deliver native-text characters to end user applications and the presentation to the user, there is a case to be made that the "interoperable implementations" condition needs to be demonstrated with actual, end-user-oriented, applications that deliver non-ASCII characters to users. That is, interoperability between test environments that can demonstrate the ability to prepare, code, and decode strings is not sufficient to demonstrate that interoperable and conforming implementations are possible. I can't tell from the IDNConnect "final report" whether that stronger condition was met by those programs but, if it was not,(Continue reading)
RSS Feed