is IDNA the ML-DNS we wait for ?

[James Seng]

Let me forward to the group what I said to you in private:

"Sorry to say you wouldnt find the answers to your questions here.

If your members thinks IDNA is not suitable and they need ML-DNS, then
they should start working. You do what you have to do.

The working group however is focus on one and only one thing, updating
IDNA. This mailing list is called "idna-update" should be obvious
enough of the priority."

ps: You probably dont understand the dry humor of my English shortcoming.

-James Seng

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:16 PM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> At 04:40 17/05/2008, Vint Cerf wrote:
>>
>> Thanks james, you and e a common understanding of the focus for this
>> working group.
>> V
>
> Dear Vint,
> I read this as "you and I have a common understanding of the focus for this
> working group".
>
> As I commented to James,  the question is not about the focus of this WG
> which is IDNA. The question is about what do you expect from IDNA  as
> compared to these users expectations.
>
> The initial WG-IDNA charter called for a survey of the user demand. If I am
> correct it was then decided it was beyond what IETF could do and it was
> eventually decided that the best was to give the RFC a try and to review the
> IDNA proposition after a few years of pragmatic deployment.. This is exactly
> what is happening. Most of the members of this group have participated to
> the whole WG-IDNA process, contributed to the first implementations of IDNA,
> worked on its update, jointly decided of this WG-IDNABIS. This represents a
> considerable amount of experience, expertise and knowledge about
> internationalization on the market.
>
> I chair an @large organisation. Our understanding of an @large is someone
> considering himself from his knowledge, involvement, investment, monthly
> bill, usage, innovative thinking and efforts, business involvement,
> political and societal responsibilities, etc. as an Internet co-owner. Most
> are more interested in applied semantic strata, consider the ASCII DNS as a
> good tool, and agree with WSIS multilingualism for which they expect the DNS
> to work transparently. They just want to know, if you consider that IDNA
> will eventually bring an answer to their needs as they express them, or if
> you do not and why. This is only because they want to know if they should
> just keep waiting for November, help the concertation meeting I proposed, or
> give a try to an Internet upgrade supporting the missing OSI layers in a
> different but interoperable manner.
>
> jfc
>
>