KATS (Korean Agency for Technology and Standards)'s Comments on theUnicode Codepoints and IDNA Internet-Draft

[JFC Morfin]

At 00:23 01/11/2008, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>As a phishing issue, I also strongly agree with Andrew Sullivan's 
>original contention. This, by rights, should be a policy issue, and 
>not a protocol issue -- and effectively what the group is moving 
>towards here is a character-by-character position on ruling out spoofability.

I am sorry but I must support this. With the same idea of not 
breaking the consensus, not because I agree, but because we are late 
and urgently need some document to be published.

I wish that local languages situations are reported by local experts 
for two reasons; for this WG to better understand what it deals with 
and for some local experts to feel involved. This is why I do regret 
the lack of cooperation spirit with the MAAYA team over the African issues.

However, I do not wish this WG to patch the common protocol on a per 
language/script basis. I wish this WG to acquire experience of the 
type of problems that can exist and to come with second degree 
generic architectural solutions, they can possibly exemplify with 
first degree resolutions. I already resent IDNA as an 
internationalization approach instead of the multilingualisation 
approach the world as requires (WSIS): I would really be disappointed 
if it became a localization proposition.
jfc