Subject: [idn] Presentation suggestion about "requirements" doc

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 04:13:03 -0500

Hi.

I've been working on some more extensive comments to the WG
(coming soon) that have required making several more passes
through the Requirements document.   Having done so, I'd like to
make a suggestion about the format of document itself.

Basically, the document has two parts: 

* A collection of background, definitions, DNS tutorial,
and service model (section 1)

* Some requirements and desiderata for DNS names that
contain non-ASCII characters (sections 2 and 3).

Some of the latter are quite controversial, and may become more
so as more people realize that none of the proposals on the table
satisfy all of them.   Given the amount of material I think is
controversial, and the relative silence (measured in the number
of people who have spoken up) when the WG Last Call request was
made, I also suggest that too few people in the WG are paying
attention to the document, but that is another matter.

Section 1 appears to contain over half of the substantive text in
the document.

So, regardless of what we do about the substantive content of
this document, I suggest splitting it into two separate pieces,
with the current section 1 becoming, e.g., "Internationalized
[Access to] Domain Names: Context and Background", and leaving
only sections 2 and 3 as the "requirement" document.

This should permit us to tie up the first new doc almost
immediately -- the statements there are matters of fact and
should not be controversial -- while I suggest that the other
material will need to go another round (if only to
justify/rationalize the "requirements" proposals before the WG
don't meet).

     john

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 10:20:54 -0500

John,

What advantage is gained by moving the context and background information
into a separate document that might be less controversial than the
requirements?  Conversely, what is lost by keeping the document as-is?

<Scott/>

-----Original Message-----
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 4:13 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [idn] Presentation suggestion about "requirements" doc

Hi.

[snip]

     john