Re: [idn] requirements-07

["James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>]

Just another note:

[30] is drop at the request of John Klensin sent on 13th May:

"" From my point of view, the "appropriate wording change" is to
lose [30] --and any other notion of different things happening
in different zones-- entirely.  ...""

There is no further comments or objections to this after 10days.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
To: "James Seng/Personal" <James@seng.cc>
Cc: <idn@ops.ietf.org>; <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: [idn] requirements-07


> > 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
>