Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050316125429.04464370@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:04:49 +0100
To: Erik van der Poel <erik@vanderpoel.org>,
	"Martin v. LXwis" <martin@v.loewis.de>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [idn] Re: stability
Cc: Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com>,
	Mark Davis <mark.davis@jtcsv.com>, idn@ops.ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4237917D.9080507@vanderpoel.org>
References: <421B8484.3070802@vanderpoel.org>
 <D872CCF059514053ECF8A198@scan.jck.com>
 <421D8411.9030006@vanderpoel.org>
 <p06210208be4390618c81@[192.168.0.101]>
 <421E0D0C.2000309@vanderpoel.org>
 <p06210202be43c3888991@[192.168.0.101]>
 <E07CE813AD23B2D95DA0C740@scan.jck.com>
 <421E30F2.1040408@vanderpoel.org>
 <0E7F74C71945B923C52211F3@scan.jck.com>
 <421EA0C9.1010500@vanderpoel.org>
 <00a401c51af3$7863aae0$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
 <A574CA1BE87BFDA3C2A1AC0E@scan.jck.com>
 <42322CE2.4040509@vanderpoel.org>
 <4232B2FD.1080104@vanderpoel.org>
 <4232BA56.5090001@vanderpoel.org>
 <iluk6odazwb.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
 <00e801c528a8$99ad37d0$72703009@sanjose.ibm.com>
 <ilull8qb5n5.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
 <42367B63.6080300@vanderpoel.org>
 <4237450A.9010901@v.loewis.de>
 <423754F3.50405@vanderpoel.org>
 <ilumzt47ezc.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
 <42375C9E.8040001@v.loewis.de>
 <4237917D.9080507@vanderpoel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

At 02:53 16/03/2005, Erik van der Poel wrote:
>Martin v. Löwis 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