> > The objections from the Taiwanese (non-wg members btw) are noted to the > > group. > > See http://www.imc.org/idn/mail-archive/msg05977.html > > > > None of them provide any useful technical information to the last call. > > Neither are the protest within the IETF process as described in RFC2026 > > Section 6.5. > > I have to disagree with this. > > first of all, there's no such thing as a wg member. anybody who > contributes to the discussion is as much a member as anyone else. I meant to say they are not subscriber of the wg. (btw, it is not funny to get 353 bounce mails, sorting them out and manually replying to each of them.) > second, this is useful technical input, and the problems with > TC/SC equivalence are serious. even if they can't be fixed > reasonably with the current DNS protocol, they do have some > bearing on the applicability of IDN. It is useful technical input on the first time. By the 353th time, someone got to ask what else are they contributing? > third, I don't see why you say these are not within the IETF process, > but I find no justification for that statement. if nothing else, > the spirit of IETF has always been to consider any constructive input, > even if it were not presented in exactly the correct way. It is a protest and appeal against the last call. The IETF process specify the exact process to do so in RFC2026 Section 6.5. -James Seng