Vint Cerf vint at
Thu Mar 20 13:17:18 CET 2008

no one is suggesting that this work be rubber-stamped. On the other  
hand, the effort has been deep, broad and careful. It has drawn on  
experts in the area. The work should be given the opportunity to be  
reviewed for what it represents. It makes no sense to literally  
'start over'. If the review of the now-developed documents reveals  
serious need for revision that can be undertaken but I think it is  
only sensible to begin with the assumption that this work is credible  
and reasonably-expressed in the existing documents.


On Mar 19, 2008, at 4:57 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 05:00:38PM -0000,
>  Debbie Garside <debbie at> wrote
>  a message of 46 lines which said:
>> But it would be unwise and wasteful, shall we say, and more than a
>> little time consuming, to develop documents afresh when a
>> considerable amount of expert knowledge, time and effort has already
>> been expended.
> I strongly disagree. We must not only consider the amount and quality
> of work done (both important in this case, specially given the
> complicated issues) but also wether it is based on sensible
> requirments and goes in the right direction. Otherwise, any proposal
> based on hard work could be "rubber-stamped" by IETF, even if it is a
> bad proposal, just by claiming "it was a lot of work".
> Historically, in computer networks, a lot of "expert knowledge, time
> and effort" have been spent on bad protocols and software... Just
> imagine the OSI people asking to choose CLNP because they spent time
> on it... Or, for a more recent example, the Telco people asking for
> the IETF to blindly approve IMS because it incorporates a lot of
> effort...
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at

More information about the Idna-update mailing list