Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-cnrp-03.txt

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 10:05:55 -0700

Claim: "just send UTF8" is good enough.

Challenge: construct a convincing example of Common Name Resolution where
"just send UTF8" is not "good enough", where "good" includes the appropriate
tradeoffs of performance, protocol simplicity, and representational
capability.
(If there are other technical factors that should also be considered, please
note
them.)

Larry

---

From: "Martin J. Duerst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:28:46 +0900

Hello Larry,

Could you be a bit more specific as to whom your mail is addressed/
to which mail you respond? If it's to my very recent mail on related
subjects, I'm confused, because
- For Common Name *Resolution*, I agree that 'just send UTF-8' is okay.
- I have questioned whether it's appropriate to say that if something
   is not in UTF-8, it's not a Common Name. I haven't yet found a
   place in the doc where the term 'Common Name' is restricted to
   resulotion.
- My main point was not that 'just send utf-8' isn't good enough,
   but that if you do that in the context of XML, you have to define
   it in that context, and not independently.

Regards,   Martin.