Q1 is mapping on lookup permanent or transitional?

James Seng james at seng.sg
Sat Apr 4 17:24:52 CEST 2009


We don't need to feed the trolls here.

-James Seng

On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
> we are NOT going to discuss ML-DNS or JFC proposals in this mailing list.
> If you persist in posting on these topics I will have to declare your
> postings off topic and have your posting privileges removed.
> vint cerf
> Vint Cerf
> Google
> 1818 Library Street, Suite 400
> Reston, VA 20190
> 202-370-5637
> vint at google.com
> On Apr 4, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Rémy Renardin wrote:
> 2009/4/4 John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com>
>> --On Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:26 -0700 Lisa Dusseault
>> <lisa.dusseault at gmail.com> wrote:
>> While I do not
>> see any possibility of addressing the issues in the IDN context
>> -- even if only because a better solution for one particular
>> language would foul things up for others using the same script--
>> the issues that Jefsey and his colleagues have raised about
>> appropriate case matching for French are actually good examples
>> of this: if users has learned that most mappings behave in a
>> reasonable and predictable way, they will expects all
>> mapping/matching operations to work the way they would
>> predict... and be confused or irritated when they do not.
> John,
> let me summarize our "French" position as our Chair puts it. Actually users
> expect IDNA2008 as a revision of IDNA2003 to work better for them than
> IDNA2003. In the case of the French script it does not. However, the support
> of Latin majuscules is an accepted Unicode approximation (to use upper-cases
> instead and non-user-decided casefolding) which conflicts with ASCII DNs
> case insensivity in the IDNA specifc case. This is why a negotiation is to
> occur some way, to decide if Roman uppercases are ASCII or Latin.
> - If such a fundamental conflict was not noticed by this WG, while French is
> one of their nearest natural language, was disregarded by its members but
> you (in spite of us documenting it on-line), and banned by the Chair, only
> relevant language authorities can decide of them (like ASIWG, is currently
> doing for LAS).
> - this negociation mecanism belongs to the missing presentation layer. The
> double look-up is an attempt to such a negociation. But its algorithm is
> wrong: if Ecole.fr and ecole.fr are registered which one will be picked for
> "http://ecole.fr"? Another solution could be the class usage you did
> propose. Another is the virtual classes JFC proposes with the "x.--".
> Now, the Chair does not want this WG (1) to dicuss interoperabilty with our
> ML-DNS exploration (2) nor listen to users, we found that the only way to
> proceed is a complete review of the DN understanding which protects the DNS
> from confusion in usage and in management and makes it fully able to support
> the semantic addressing space as we approach it.
> Rémy Renardin
> ----------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update

More information about the Idna-update mailing list