From: Erin Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 20:46:06 -0800

Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
CC: IESG <[email-masked]>, IAB <[email-masked]>, IETF IDN WG
<[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [idn] Chinese Domain Name Consortium (CDNC) Declaration
References: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-windows-949
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk

[Note: header field too long; To & Cc have been snapped - JS]

Dear Dave Crocker,

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 06:27 PM 2/1/2002 +0800, Erin Chen wrote:
>
>> But, the architecture of IDN defined in above four documents does not
>> solve the traditional and simplified Chinese character variant
problem.
>
>
> There are many things the IDN specifications do not do. Rather, the
> specifications focus on solving satisfying only the requirement they
> are supposed to satisfy.

Do you mean the IDN-REQUIREMENT? It is no longer go with the goal of IDN
WG and will
be dropped. And we has submit a Requirements of Chinese Domain Name
draft.

> Solution of TC/SC is one example of equivalence among Unicode sets.
> Indeed, IDN does not attempt to specify such equivalences. Equivalence
> among separate Unicode sets is essentially an open technical topic for
> which there are no accepted practises.
>
> Still, this topic has been discussed, debated and explained
> extensively within the IDN working group.

I understand the IDN WG has discussed for a long time. But if the
Unicode sets is still not well
defined as you said. Why IDN refer to a unwell defined Unicode sets?
If TC/SC equivalence could not be adopt by IDN, once IDN become standard
the serious
expected delegation problem will occur. That means the user could not
get the consistent
resolving by DNS. DNS become untrust.

> The purpose of IDN is to permit use of an increased range of
> characters in domain name, beyond the current limit of ASCII. It is
> not the goal of the working group to invent character set conventions
> such as equivalence between different sets.

I suggest we have to measure if we omit some requirement such as
equivalence between some
variants like TC/SC, then what kind of serious problem would be caused.
And to review the
original goal of IDN you expressed is still proper or not.

> It will be wonderful when equivalence between sets is achieved.
> However it is not the charter of IDN to solve basic issues of
> character set equivalence and it is not reasonable to delay the
> utility of the character set enhancement specified by IDN, in the hope
> that some day the question of character set equivalence is achieved.

We made the CDNC declaration is not intend to hinder the progress of
IDN. If the IDN
still could not consider or find a proper solution for CDN requirement,
we rather the IDN
switch off CDN temperarily till the proper solution comes out to prevent
the expected
serious problem occur.

> Contrary to the claim that the working group is moving too quickly, my
> own guess is that it has been a major source of delay for the working
> group for at least 6 months. Perhaps much longer.
>
> d/

> ----------
> Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464

Erin Chen