Re: [idn] WG last call summary

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

"Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com> wrote:

> > For a given domain name slot (protocol element, structured data
> > field, function argument, etc), the governing specification...does
> > not dictate what you may do with the name after you've read it.
>
> True for message fields, false for the loosely-coupled data-types
> which are independent of a particular of any particular protocol
> message (email addresses, Message-ID, URLs, etc).

I'm not getting your point at all.  Apparently you are concerned that
there exist scenarios where ToUnicode ought to be forbidden/discouraged,
but the IDNA draft allows/encourages it.  Maybe if you described a
specific example of such a scenario, I'd start to understand.

AMC