Re: [idn] requirements-07

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

> 2. Remove requirement [30] and renumber [31] to [30].    

Without ever identifying who thought that zone-specific semantics MUST
be useful? Without ever identifying what use cases were offered for or
against such an apparently authorless assertion? Without a requirement
that zone-specific semantics MUST NOT be useful?

How ... creative.

Co-author and co-chair Seng asked me for alternate text. I responded
that without knowing why [30] ever came into being in the first place,
alternate text could not be the best course of action. Now, as if this
is "better" than the last botch (substituting "MAY" for "MUST"), all
requirement relative to semantic scope (and consistency or its lack)
has been removed.

There is something above peculiar in the process this WG is thrashing
under.

I'd like the authors of the document to respond to substantive queries,
not fumble serial text botches. I want to know why [30] was ever in, as
why it could be out is a much simpler question, though not necessarily
with only one answer.

Eric