On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 13:00 +0100, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: > At 07:32 03/03/2006, Martin Duerst wrote: > >You mix up technology and policy. Technology-wise, the Chinese are not > >doing anything else than anybody else (read IDNA/Punycode,...), > >plus probably some 8-bit stuff based on GB2312 and maybe even UTF-8 > >for backwards compatibility with earlier experiments. > > Dear Martin, > It would be no use to tell you that you confuse many things. I would > only suggest you to test and understand rather than guessing. The > Chinese set-up is very simple. But it belongs to a standard (every > other global network system) culture which is not (yet?) the IETF culture. well, what Martin writes makes sense to me. I'm afraid I have no idea what you are trying to say, however. > >(Speaking in Phillip's terms, the IETF has already defined how > >to add a 'j' key to a telephone, and most telephones already > >have one, or an equivalent.) > > I do not understand what Phillips means? a complex number has a real and an imaginary part, and the imaginary part is denoted with a "j" (well, engineers use "j", mathematicians tend to use "i"). Phillip noted that MIT could use complex telephone numbers for internal use without impacting worldwide telephone routing, since they'd use an orthogonal name space. > ICANN did their job. Their IDN list is Two years old. They had an IDN > committee in parallel of the WG-IDNA. The list has 2 mails. The > committee was lost. We discussed that extensively at the WG-IDNA. The > documentation is as confuse as unworkable. Phillip's corporation had > invested a lot of money, time and efforts in this. They had the > customer base, signed a significant number of registrants, and toured > the world to explain and motivate Registrars, ISPs and ccTLDs. They > were not alone. They only met scepticism, distinterest and lack of > registrant renewal. I don't know the history, but the recent reports http://icann.org/topics/gnso-initial-rpt-new-gtlds-19feb06.pdf and http://www.icann.org/general/idn-guidelines-22feb06.htm seem promising to me. there is wide consensus that new gTLD should be added, and allowing IDNA labels as gTLD will force its way through. adding xn--fiqs8s, xn--55qx5d and xn--io0a7i to the root servers may not happen tomorrow, but I'm sure the process will take us there in reasonable time. but this is an ICANN issue, and not related to the protocols at all. the protocols have all the support we need to implement whatever policy is decided. > The problem is in the RFC. Nowhere else. which RFC? -- Kjetil T. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf