Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-07.txt

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

Zita,

> Last revision of IDN Requirements Document.

s/Last/Latest/, unless you know otherwise.

As to the intended scope section. Some of the requirements are arch-*
independent, and some are not. Those that are not are encode-as-ASCII
specific. The awkward passive voice and oddly sited recommendation 
in a requirements draft could be made ACE-affirming, rather than try
to straddle a fence, viz,

	It is recommended that solutions not necessarily be within
	the DNS itself, but could be a layer interjected between the
	application and the DNS. 

Personally I don't agree with such a recommendation, but if there is
rough consensus, it could be clearer.

> [30] regarding equilavence rules removed

Now I know who suggested zone-specific semantics and why. However,
removal of [30] is neither a MUST NOT, nor a MUST, in fact, it is
not anything. 

Eric