RE: [idn] IDN priorities and requirements

["Larry Masinter" <LM@att.com>]

> This being IETF, we should focus on the protocol (i.e. bits-on-the-wire).
> This is both DNS client and DNS server.

The working group is chartered to develop *requirements*. When you
get down to developing a protocol, yes, you should focus on the
bits-on-the-wire. But before you create a protocol to solve a problem,
please be clear about what problem you're solving and why.

> Things like format of a zone file are usually out of scope for 
> IETF standards.

I don't think anyone was discussing "format of a zone file".

> Btw, what Larry Masinter's proposed design approach appears to 
> ignore is that
> some of the requirements currently on the table are there for reasons
> of backwards compatibility/interoperability with the deployed base.

Nonsense. Backward compatibility is essential. It's the key
reasons why trying to design "internationalization
for domain names" without paying attention to how domain names
are actually used was problematic.

> We can't just start top-down exclusively.  We have to keep 
> interoperability
> in mind at all time, painful though this is.

You're just looking at too narrow a band of "interoperability".

Regards,

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net