Re: [idn] Presentation suggestion about "requirements" doc

["D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>]

I propose replacing ``Requirements'' with ``Considerations,'' and
rephrasing the document accordingly. For example, instead of saying

   The protocol MUST NOT require that the current DNS cache servers be
   modified to support IDN.

we can say

   Does this IDN solution require revision and redeployment of DNS
   caches? How difficult are the software changes? There are a huge
   number of caches on the Internet, perhaps millions. Upgrading them
   all will take time and effort, even if the software changes are easy.

and instead of saying

   It MUST make the minimum number of changes to existing protocols on
   all layers of the stack

we can say

   How many protocols are changed by this IDN solution? How extensive
   are the changes? For example, what changes are required in the SMTP
   protocol? There is a cost to changing a protocol, beyond the cost of
   changing implementations: namely, new protocol specifications must be
   written and distributed.

Readers should be able to look back at this document and understand what
we were thinking.

James Seng/Personal writes:
> 2. If we can't nail down Requirements, it would be fairly difficult for
> us to move forward with the next step, ie, comparison and protocol.

It will be helpful to have a good framework for rational comparison of
the IDN proposals. But the current Requirements document doesn't seem to
have been written for this purpose. It appears to be an attempt to slip
a bunch of bad decisions past the WG. It's missing the justifications
that a legitimate document would have, and it imposes several premature
restrictions upon the directions that the WG can go.

---Dan