Re: "so-called" keyword and layer 3

[YangWoo Ko <newcat@peacenet.or.kr>]

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 09:59:23PM +0800, James Seng/Personal wrote:
> I believe the norm of the IETF has not take existing business
> requirements into consideration. Their technical input, however, would
> be appreciated.

Dear Jame Seng,

Thank you for comment. I did not mention "direct navigaion" as a business
requirement. This is required for Klensin's search model to fulfill its
basic purpose - "Save our DNS ! Let it work and be used as it was designed 
for !"

There have been several approaches to fill up the difference between DNS
itself and what (non Latin script) people expect DNS to be. As there was
no standard to address this issue, commercial companies jumped into this
area to mine gold. These miners happened to (under)mine DNS as a side
effect. So, we are hearing emergency call from DNS related areas. IDN and 
Klensin's search is going to answer this call.

If IDN WG succeeded in standardization and we suceeded in deploying it,
(personally I really hope so) it could relieve this burden and Klensin's
search would concentrate on other issues. But, when considering Klensin's
search, we would better not assume so many things. So, I still think that
some name service which supports "direct navigation" and hence serves as
an alternative to "internationalized network resource name" is needed
to lessen unnecessary and even harmful overload on DNS and to prevent
Internet be tangled along boarders of "so-called" keyword service 
providers.

My best regards

-- 
/*------------------------------------------------
YangWoo Ko : newcat@peacenet.or.kr
PeaceNet / Director
------------------------------------------------*/