Re: [idn] Document Status?

[Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 12:38 AM 9/4/2002 -0500, Eric A. Hall wrote:
> on 9/3/2002 10:46 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
> > You should worry about the fact that after 10 years, it still does not
> > have a particularly major position in Internet mail.
>
> Oh please, that's more of a reflection on deploying features into a
> hop-by-hop network than anything. Cripes, ~everything takes a decade to
> widely deploy with SMTP.  Meanwhile, you are blatantly ignoring the other
> side of the coin, which is that protocols like FTP and HTTP had a null
> deployment window simply because they did not require encoding (FTP could
> ignore it, and HTTP could go straight to binary).

1.  Long revision adoption latencies are primarily caused by installed base.

2.  To use your own perspective, DNS is a hop-by-hop system, when viewed 
properly.


> > the real question is the basis for YOUR issues.
>
> My position has been consistent. Regardless, this thread is about your
> claim that IDNA is "the same as MIME" which is patently false.

The comment was that the encoding approach of IDNA was the same as the MIME 
encoding approach for binary data in a 7-bit environment.  And that, I'm 
afraid, is patently true.


>  They have different usage models and different architectures.

they have the same architecture.  8-bit data translated onto a 7-bit 
environment.


>  Such a comparison is useful to the hoi polloi but it is a dead-end as 
> any sort of engineering discussion point.

Eric, forgive me.  I forgot that you had extensive experience in developing 
and revising these protocols and in seeing them deployed.  As someone new 
to the topic, I often get confused about such these architectural issues.

d/


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