Re: Zone scope (was:Re: Who's problem? (was Re: [idn] Mixed TC/SC (was Re: Layer 2 and "idn identities"))

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

John,

These are the operative clauses of [30] (nee [35]), from the Seng/Wenzel
text, as points in time (-04, -05, -06) prior to the present:

	within a single zone
	the zone manager
	MUST be able to
	define equivalence rules

This does not speak to what names are permitted or how they are managed,
your (i), but to equivalencey rules, your (ii) -- the iceberg about which
we've been beating for above six months.

I appreciate your response, but like mine, it isn't the opinion of the
dns experts to whom an IDN "recommended solution (involving the DNS)" may
be forwarded on to. If the DNSEXT WG can't consensus that a mechanism
may be scoped, then a requirement such as [30] _can't_ be satisfied. If
on the other hand, they are divided (no pun intended) on the issue, or
consensus to the affirmative, then the lack of a capacity for scoping is
possibly justified on grounds other than technical infeasibility.

Let's stick to (ii). If we were doing (i) then we'd be discussing whether
palindrome-only and rent-by-the-day operational practices in zone A were
permitted, while zone B has a must-be-a-trademark-when-reversed and yearly
rentals. There would be humor, even some sensible business rules, but not
a lot of technical matter.

Eric