[idn] phasing out ACE

["Adam M. Costello" <idn.amc+0@nicemice.net.RemoveThisWord>]

There has been much debate about whether ACE should be phased out.  Even
though people have different views, I don't think we really need to
debate this question.

On one side are people who think it is both possible and desirable
to phase out ACE eventually.  On the other side are people who doubt
whether it is possible or worth the effort to phase out ACE.  I don't
recall anyone saying that ACE should live forever even if it were easy
and painless to phase out.

So the people who favor the phase-out can go ahead and work toward that
goal.  The others need not bother to stand in the way (because if the
goal is unachievable, there's no need to oppose it, and if the goal is
not worth the effort, then opposing the goal is likewise not worth the
effort).

I see only two points of possible contention for this working group:

First, should the IDNA spec state that ACE is transitional, or should
it state that ACE is the long-term solution, or should it take neither
position?  By remaining neutral it would not shut the door on either
possibility, so this ought to be the least objectionable to the most
people.

Second, should DNS extensions for native support of IDNs be developed
by the idn working group, or the dnsext working group?  Phasing out
ACE will require upgrades to every IETF standard that uses domain
names, and hence will involve many working groups.  DNS is just one
of many protocols that will need to be upgraded.  So perhaps the idn
working group should take a coordinating/consulting role, while the new
standards are actually produced by other working groups.  DNS need not
be an exception.

AMC