Re: [idn] iDNS re-chartering proposal, take 2

["Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>]

Dave Crocker wrote:

> Perhaps the most important goals in re-chartering this effort are to:
> 
>          1.  Narrow the scope of work
> 
>          2.  Specify deliverables very precisely
> 
>          3.  Specify dates for deliverable that are very near-term.

These are fine goals, but the specific objective items you cite are not
satisfactory to the weight of the task at hand. Instead, they raise more
artificial barriers.

> 2.  Focus on the production of a single technical specification to be
> offered as a standard.  Hence the working group is no longer exploring,
> researching or otherwise having broad discussions.

Some of the proposals are at odds with such an objective, and so the
adoption of this objective would only serve to narrow the work items. For
example, UDNS requires a coordinated release for at least two purposes: so
that name lengths can be synchronized, and so that delegation entities can
coordinate delegations they make as UTF-8 and ACE encoded representations
of the same UCS string. Adopting your work items would mean that those
considerations would not be incorporated (unless you added them to ACE
while I wasn't looking), and would therefore result in alternatives being
non-conformant with the WG output.

Additional beauracracy does not result in better science. Let's let the
technology compete on its own merits, okay?

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/