[idn] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-requirements-06.txt

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

53: s/altho/although

Who cares in a WG requirements draft if a current assumption may not yet
or ever enjoy the celebrated status of the consensus of the IETF community?
We're here to solve a problem _caused_ by some prior consensus, a statement
of work not unique to this WG. Compare, v4 vs v6.

Also, at 49, s/item/protocol/.

496-502 [30]

Just what does a change from MUST to MAY accomplish? This doesn't remove the
(argued) problem of zone-specific semantics. MUST NOT would have accomplished
that. The original motivation for [30] appeares to have been either forgotten
or mislaid, and weakening it isn't the same as removing it, or restating it.

Note to the authors: My query of 30 April is appended.

651: s/<</</.

Cheers,
Eric

------- Forwarded Message


Message-Id: <200104301212.f3UCCkc16114@nic-naa.net>
To: zita@isi.edu, jseng@pobox.org.sg
cc: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>,
   idn@ops.ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net
Subject: [idn] Clarification, draft-ietf-idn-requirements-0?.txt, [30]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:12:46 -0400
From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

Authors,

Would you do me the kindness of reminding me who proposed the current text
of General Requirements, item [30]? I'd like to know what use case(s) were
offered to motivate this manditory-to-implement (zone manager definition of
equivalency rules) requirement.

Tia,
Eric


------- End of Forwarded Message