Subject: Re: [iucg] Bundling

From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:24:43 +0100

At 20:35 02/12/2009, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>I don't see where that principle begins and ends.  If it were 
>entirely true, zone operators would be entirely free to register 
>xn--garbage as a domain, entirely free to register DISALLOWED characters.
>
>Since it is in the purview of IDNA designers to make a character 
>valid or disallowed,  wouldn't also be in the purview of IDNA 
>designers to say something like "This character becomes valid on 
>date 01/01/2020", right?  So why wouldn't it be in the purview of 
>IDNA designers to also say something like "This character becomes 
>fully valid on date 01/01/2020, but until then, may be registered if 
>it is bundled with another sequence"?
>
>Doncha love slippery slopes :)

Lisa,

I do hope this is a joke. But this is a very bad one. This kind of 
questions after an IETF/LC on a key document for the world by the 
IESG Member in charge sounds like a pure destruction of the IETF 
credibility. Because the principle precisely begins and ends with the 
authority of the IETF Applications Area AD.

The entire Internationalised Internet construct is based upon the 
people's trust that others' will trust the IETF will NEVER say what 
you say, but that the IETF will make every effort as per its mission 
to keep its whole set of documents (RFC) fully interoperable with the 
existing human languages, so the Internet works better. IDNA2003 was 
NOT interoperable enough with human languages because it was too 
rigid and "unique". IDNA2008 brought far more flexibility and has 
proven to be nearly adequate, except on a few points that IDNA2010 
will have to address based upon experience, the most important one 
architecturally wise being the French Majuscules.

So, if this is not a joke, I am afraid you got the story deadly 
wrong. It certainly NOT is in the purview of IDNA designers to make a 
character pvalid or disallowed, it is their responsibility to permit 
users to sensibly use the internet in their own language, without 
confusion, without phishing, in researching if - in their model and 
according to people, linguists, governements - a character may 
usually qualify as DISALLOWED or PVALID. And what do they advise to 
do in such occurences, being respected the authority of the zone 
manager and of the users, as well as the specificities of the 
considered sociolinguistic environment.

We are certainly not liking slippery slopes when the world stability 
and the IETF credibility are at stake.

Sorry if I misread your mail. But I have increasing difficulties 
understanding the purpose of this whole set of threads you made introduced.

jfc