Re: [idn] Future of the requirements document

[Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@eng.sun.com>]

> I don't think any of us expect anything to be perfect (lack of uppercase
> non-ASCII is an obvious example of trade-offs already encountered). The
> problem we have at this point is that there isn't even a "good enough"
> specification. I mean, on the surface we have something that may work for
> IDN zone delegation with legacy servers, but SRV owners, legacy ASCII
> mixed case in PTR, valid mailboxes in SOA, legacy eight-bit domain names
> are all invalid in the model. This is without even discussing potential
> future problems. Incredible.

Eric,

I didn't say that the discussion about IHN vs. IDN syntactic restrictions
are unimportant. Carefully defining this is important IMHO but most of
the discussion in the WG until recently has been about host names. 

Carefully definiting this doesn't mean we need the requirements document.

> As to whether or not a requirements document is necessary, note that
> several modifications were suggested which would have made it relevant,
> the suggestions were ignored, and then the document was shelved by an
> external committee.

Not an external committee but the ADs for the working group.
I think the ADs are allowed to talk to people to get advise, which
is what happened in this case. And we're listening to the WG comments
on the suggestion to drop the requirements document. 
 
> If people want to go some other path, let them. My guess is that the
> squeaky wheels have sunk a considerable amount of time and capital into a
> single likely outcome, and that anything outside of the head-start
> advantage afforded by that outcome is going to be problematic for them.

I don't understand the above reference to "squaky wheel" - are you
referring to the proponents of the IDNA solution? (They seem to be relatively
quiet which is why I don't understand the reference.)

  Erik