Re: [idn] Re: IDN Charter

[James Seng <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

RJ Atkinson wrote:
> I disagree.  Dan's version can be interpreted as not requiring backwards
> compatibility with the installed base.  Backwards compatibility is an
> operational necessity because it is not possible to change or upgrade
> all DNS software at the same time.  Any changes in the operational
> system (e.g. from BIND 8 to a hypothetical future BIND 24) will happen
> incrementally over time.

If I am not wrong, this is preciesly the "serious concern" of IESG and IAB
have on IDN, ie backward compatiblity. They want us to ensure at least to be
aware that we should try our best not to break the current exisiting DNS.

In anycase, I do not see how Dan's version can be interpreted in that
persective. The only differences, IMHO, with Dan's version is that he
expicitive stated that IDN can (may) only be achieve by an upgrade which I
suppose can be taken for granted.

Anyway, so what is should we do now? Proceed with IESG's or Dan's?

-James Seng