Stability of valid IDN labels
lbleriot at gmail.com
Wed Apr 23 03:11:56 CEST 2008
2008/4/21, John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com>:
> --On Sunday, 20 April, 2008 23:26 +0200 LB <lbleriot at gmail.com>
> Your English, assisted or otherwise, is much better than my
> French. We will need to be patient with each other, especially
> where special terminology is concerned.
If you understand what I say it is perfect. Google Bravo!
> > I will not talk
> > much. I just wanted three things:
> > -- Allow the needs of the French language, as the first
> > representative of linguistic diversity, not to be dismissed
> > because our competitors had rejected Jefsey. And other French
> > and @large on this list are not blocked. This seems OK.
> As far as I know, only Jefsey is blocked.
Russ said he is not, and it seems no longer be.
> My impression is that French is adequately covered in both the
> old and proposed new versions of IDNA, with no change between
> the two. There is a complication in conversions from
> upper-case characters from which significant accents or other
> markings may have been dropped but, if one considers all IDN
> labels to be lower-case, that problem disappears. If there are
> problems with the representation of French, we need to hear
> about them, ideally succinctly and with specific examples
Jefsey explains better than I do. We try to bring together through
ISOC France and france at large people's opinions, and academics across
We also are discussing with projects TLD French regional languages.
We have no discussion with AFNIC which does not offer domain names in
French. Stephane Bortzmeyer says often thengs we supportt. We are in
contact with members of la Francophonie, UNESCO, Eurolinc (founded by
Jefsey, Louis Pouzin, and so on. [Jefsey was replaced by Michel
Peissik who represented France at WSIS]).
It is too early to give conclusions.
> (rather than with the excursions into philosophy to which we
> have sometimes been treated).
What you call philosophy is probably what we call necessary
architectural considerations :-). I see that you did not comment
Jefsey's answer your questions on this point. What Jefsey said is: if
you think qu'IDNA is a good solution, we must help you to prove to
We doubt you can, but that we will show that there is no conflict
between IDNA and our tests. So that there is no interference.
> > -- Help find a solution for the PR-action after watching the
> > debate in recent years and have been attacked myself. I have
> > some simple ideas. Rather than making appealsl, I would prefer
> > to make a Draft.
> Internet-Drafts are much preferable if you actually hope to
> persuade anyone. You should be aware, despite the confusion
> about whether you and Jefsey were separate people, that the IETF
> strongly dislikes banning people from posting to lists and that
> such actions are taken only as an act of desperation after
> alternatives of temporary suspensions and admonishments have
> failed repeatedly. While it may feel different to the handful
> of people against which the mechanism has been used, just about
> all that is necessary to avoid one is to stay on-topic on each
> mailing list to which one posts and to avoid wild accusations,
> personal attacks, and the like.
It is necessary to revise the RFC from this experience that we have
followed in a large part.
It was not good a fundamental technical problem for
non-English-speaking could not simply be discussed at the IETF. Jefsey
won the consensus we needed to preserve interoperability, allowing a
transition to the positions of the WSIS, and protect European
manufacturers. The debate rejected by the IETF, eventually happened at
a meeting between ISO, ICANN and MLTF. Debbie Garside unwilling to
consider a transition to the expectations of the WSIS saw her proposal
(which nevertheless brought forward on the IETF) supported only by
Ireland and the USA.
> > -- Push other @large and ISOC to participate as to whether
> > yes / no IDNA can be used or what.
> As discussed in the draft Rationale document (if not clearly
> enough, I would welcome advice) there are inevitably several
> different pieces (or layers if you prefer) of the IDNA story.
> The IETF discussions involve only the protocol and tables which
> are, of necessity, global.
Prince Andrew would say that we do not have the same understanding of globality.
> Most of the usability issues are, in
> practice, much more the concern of those registering names and
> of those implementing and selecting applications software.
> > I understood that the first goal of the WG in the Charter was
> > to confirm IDNA and say why you think IDNA is the only
> > solution IETF, once and for all. For the MLTF is now free to
> > work without creating confusion. And that all are in agreement
> > - or it is IDNA is, or is a different architecture for the
> > Internet.
> If I understand this, yes.
This is why we have started working. Just in case.
More information about the Idna-update