Lisa Dusseault lisa.dusseault at gmail.com
Thu Dec 3 01:46:41 CET 2009

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:

> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> ...
>> Even if this is a rhetorical question, I'll bite.  It's because the IETF
>> makes decisions by rough consensus and running code.  Rough consensus is
>> among informed participants as well as experts and people in certain
>> positions of authority or responsibility.  Running code certainly brings in
>> browser/client implementation history and current client implementation
>> concerns.  It is not only operators of the countries where those languages
>> are most spoken, that have collateral effects from the status of the
>> characters of those languages in IDNA.
> It was just this assertion, in late 2001, that allowed the IDNA (2003) WG
> to ignore the input from Chinese engineers.
> That resulted in a later separate document, and a contemporaneous second,
> correctly functioning, for local definition of correct, name space, which
> persists to this day.
> At some point, the tension between 2826 and someone's broken code has to be
> resolved, and continuing to favor someone's broken code over 2826 has a
> downside.

Your argument is a fair argument to try to influence the consensus, but it
is not a fair argument to overrule a consensus (not that I'm saying you are
doing that).   We do rely on most IETF participants being constructive most
of the time.  We just have no other process besides appealing to people who
are forming the consensus to look at running code, reality, security
concerns and so on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20091202/c6914a9a/attachment.htm 

More information about the Idna-update mailing list