Re: [idn] Document Status?

["JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>]

On 11:37 31/08/02, James Seng said:
> My note is to clarify to the group (not just to Dave), that we are in this 
> process with the ADs. Most of the stuff going on are minor, request for 
> additional paragraph for clarification. But a few are substained enough to 
> warrant another partial wg last call (which is what we did).
May I offer a remark for this AD tuning? As a new comer I read the proposed 
text as will do reader. I am confused by two wordings and uncertain about 
others. Dave proposes a lexical: I think the idea helpful (as long as it 
respects the text).

1. would it not be a good occasion of getting rid of the odd phrase about 
domain/host names and to introduce a stable wording such as "internet 
name"and "international internet names" or "multilingual internet names" 
which corresponds to the compromise we actually use? I am concerned about:

- the confusion it adds about what is a domain name, specialy in this 
complex context. We try to simplify and stabilize in discussing only 
strings, not what international lawyers may do with them. In making clear 
we only talk about alphanum pointers to IP addresses we migh help 
disjointing the legal and the technical aspects?

- I am concerned about using a concept (international) for another 
(multilingual) when the international concept may become another issue with 
national DNS views.

2.  I am confused about the implications of the proposed change of part 7. 
If I am right the target is to stick to the current common status of the 
DNS, whatever it may be. Could we not just define a "DNS character set" (as 
"0-9 a-Z -." today) and say that it can extend with DNS specifications. 
Would it not be clearer and be more compact?

3. is "IESG--" meant to stay, or is it temporary? Would this wording not 
add to the root management problems, 2 extra characters making a difference 
for many international TLD?

jfc
liaison to Eurolinc