Re: [idn] RE: An idn protocolfor consideration in making the requirements

[ned.freed@innosoft.com]

> At 11:38 11.02.00 -0800, ned.freed@innosoft.com wrote:

> > > Maybe that is a 'strong' statement, but without such a
> > > goal we may very likely get a 'solution' that will lead
> > > to problems that a) there is no end to, and b) some think
> > > aren't problems no matter how problematic they are.
> >
> >Having it as a goal is fine. But having it as a requirement all proposals
> >must meet is not.

> I think this makes a good "should" requirement: We'd like to do it, if we
> don't have a VERY, VERY good reason not to.

I'm on the fence about this myself. I see a lot of other things
I feel a lot more strongly about as SHOULDs, like "SHOULD be able to deploy
quickly", and I see a good chance that these other things are going to end
up in direct conflict with this goal.

I guess I can live with it being a SHOULD, but I have a sinking feeling
that making it one may come back to haunt us.

				Ned