%
%
% There are several ways to provide "multilingual" capabilities
% and many TLD registrars have selected a methodology. Why
% pick on this one when NU, CN, JP, KR, et.al. have followed
% similar paths. Just because a method is not an IETF
% "approved technical specification" does not mean that it
% is not defined.
%
% --bill
%
% All the TLD registrars agree that IETF is the best place to define
% IDN standard, at least I know CN, JP, KR and TW agree to adopt
% IETF specification when things are available. Even the technology which
% developed by the TLD registrars is changing. From TLD registrars'
% point of view, they are exploring the IDN possibility through limited
% resources, budge...etc,. It's difficult to say whether this kind of
% exploration has defined the technology.
%
% Kenny Huang
True. All the TLD registrars agree that the IETF is the best
place to define IDN stanards. In the absence of an IETF
standard, each of you have a defined "standard" on how you
implement IDN capabilities, even as the methodologies change.
One would expect that if/when the working group reaches
agreement, that the IESG/IAB will move quickly to ratify the
wg results. I expect then, that ALL implementors will move to
harmonize their implementations to the newly minted IETF
proposed standard... including NSI.
--bill
