[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [idn] Document Status?

At 10:20 PM 9/3/2002 -0500, Eric A. Hall wrote:

on 9/3/2002 9:27 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 08:36 PM 9/3/2002 -0500, Eric A. Hall wrote:
>
>> on 9/3/2002 4:16 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
>>
>>> 10 years, Eric.  10 years.  So far.  And still counting.
>>
>> What is this comment supposed to mean exactly?
>
> It means that talking about such work for MIME does not mean much,
> since we still do not have a demonstration that it is particularly
> popular yet.

Binary transfers aren't popular with HTTP?

They are not popular in email. Please remember that IDNA tackles the problem of placing 8-bit data in a 7-bit field, the same as MIME for email.


I still don't understand the "10 years" comment,

The comment is about how long it takes to make change and it is about being careful what we use for making decisions. Making decisions based on a hypothetical future is usually a mistake. Making a decision based on actual practise is always safer and usual makes for better decisions.

 either. RFC 1341 defined
a Content-Transfer-Encoding type of BINARY in 1992, while RFC 1830 defined
a binary transfer mode for SMTP in 1995, while RFC 1945 did the same for
HTTP in 1996.

You should worry about the fact that after 10 years, it still does not have a particularly major position in Internet mail.

Can you state your issues without using this metaphor?

My "issues" are that IDNA is the right technical solution for the particular set of technical and operational constraints it is targeted.

You think otherwise, so the real question is the basis for YOUR issues. So far, you appear to be preferring to rely on possible futures, and on claims that IDNA is somehow special. Yet the implementation and operational impacts of this specialness has not yet been made clear.

d/


----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850