Another Transition Plan Proposal
Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com
Fri Dec 11 00:47:33 CET 2009
For the time frame I want a deadline. It isn't easy for me to turn on (or off) support if the time slips. So I'd rather ask the registrars how long they need, pad it a little, and then stick with it.
Suppose de, at, etc agree on 6 months. Then after 5 months Google says they need 2 more months. Then after 7 months, live.com says they just became aware that this impacts them and they need some time. Then yahoo says that if their competitors are doing it they want to fix it too.
So I'd much rather specify a time 6-12 months and stick to it.
As I said before I think tons of places are going to get hit by the transition. Many lower level zones don't have infrastructure to bundle. Users get one name, that's it.
Is the WG going to wait a year for someone to redesign, and another to adopt it? Catch-22: if we did, maybe they end up waiting until it gets urgent to even start planning.
AFAICR(remember), some individuals noted that the words differ, however the registrars seemed to think bundling was more useful for their use.
Sent from my HTC FUZE™, a Windows Mobile® smartphone from AT&T
From: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 3:26 PM
To: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com>
Cc: idna-update at alvestrand.no <idna-update at alvestrand.no>; Vint Cerf <vint at google.com>
Subject: Re: Another Transition Plan Proposal
On 10/12/09 15:07, Shawn Steele wrote:
> Phase 1: I think that in addition to the 5 key areas, that other
> zone operators should be encouraged to consider if this applies to
> them as well.
Sure. My assertion was only that without the support of all five, the
plan is probably a non-starter. The more the merrier :-)
> Phase 2: Instead of "reporting" back. I'd like to see something
> like "6 months after the RFC is published clients start to change
> their implementations."
OK. As long as we have buy-in from them on the amount of time they need.
Having said that, if we reached 6 months, and the .de registry said "we
need another month", we wouldn't ship a Firefox making the change.
Perhaps the trick is, instead of saying "once they'd reported back", say
"unless we hear an official request, with rationale, for more time".
Reverse the default.
> Phase 3: I think the registries you've mentioned aren't very
> interested in un-bundling the sharp s, so I don't think the
> conjecture is helpful, and is perhaps misleading.
OK, great. I certainly think unbundling is a bad idea, but my vague
impression from some of the discussion on this list is that some locales
would consider it.
Idna-update mailing list
Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update