> From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@xxxxxxx] > --On Monday, 26 March, 2007 11:02 -0700 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Observation: Many IETF-ers have entries in Linked-In ... > > > Regret: We did not get out ahead of the curve with Instant > Messaging. > > We should have done Jabber in 1995. > > Depends on what you count and a whole series of questions > about timing and expectations. SEND/ SAML/ SOML provided a > network-based "instant message" facility by 1982. The TALK > protocol dates from very early version of U**x. By 'getting ahead of' I meant in deployment. Clearly IRC was on the table and successful. But not really ready for prime time (and still is not). > And, until > people started considering it to be a security and privacy > risk, the finger protocol provided a fairly decent indication > of presence. The response to the security issues was to drop the protocol entirely, not fix it. > Of course, as soon as you tied your identity to email > addresses and domain names, you get entangled with the > identifier internationalization issues that were discussed in last > Thursday's plenary. Perhaps using an internationalized > identifier, by itself, increases the odds that the only > people who are likely to be able to try to contact you are > already part of your social (or at least cultural and > linguistic) network, but I doubt that is what you had in mind. I don't quite see I18N issues the same way. I think that we can have muiltiple addresses. For practical purposes we accept a restriction in the telephone world to the numbers 0-9 with a couple of control characters (+, *, #). I suspect we end up with a practical requirement for a LATIN-1 plus alphanum address as a commonly supported minimum standard indefinitely. If I can also be reached via a UNICODE address so much the better. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf