Subject: [idn] Re: UTF-8 as the long-term IDN solution

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Jul 2001 17:28:41 -0000

Keith Moore writes:
> I believe this is adequately addressed in RFC 2026, section 6.5.

I don't see how.

RFC 2026, section 6.5, is for cases where someone disagrees with ``a
Working Group recommendation.''

What's happening in this case is completely different. There is no
recommendation. There are a huge number of WG members who

   (1) agree that UTF-8 will be the long-term solution;
   (2) suspect that there's consensus in the WG on #1; and
   (3) believe that establishing consensus would save time for the WG.

But the chair, who disagrees with #1, is stonewalling, in violation of
his responsibility under RFC 2418 to ensure forward progress.

As you can see from http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers.html, I've
already tried using the RFC 2026 process to handle procedural problems,
specifically DNSEXT mailing list censorship, which has been roundly
criticized in POISSON recently. The process took more than two years.
The basic problem still isn't fixed.

I don't want IDN to wait two years. There needs to be a mechanism for
the WG to act over the opposition of the chair. IETF doesn't seem to
have any such mechanism.

---Dan

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:22:55 +0800

Dan,

Once again, let me clarify: the chairs do not have any opinion on #1.
(In fact, I think you can put me in group #2).

But what we need is a draft, not an idea. Please point us to the draft
which you are supporting or write one. No drafts, no face-time, no RFC,
something I expected a long-time IETFer like you should be aware of.

-James Seng