Interoperability

[John C Klensin]

--On Monday, 28 July, 2008 08:07 +0100 Paul Hoffman
<phoffman at imc.org> wrote:

> At 12:41 AM -0400 7/28/08, John C Klensin wrote:
>> As I read your note (and I would encourage anyone on the list
>> who hasn't done so, and done so carefully, to fix that), I
>> come away with the feeling that you assume that, in the
>> absence of very specific guidance and instructions,
>> implementers are likely to run wild and do things that we
>> would agree are crazy.
> 
> That is one interpretation of his message. Another is that
> implementers are likely to do as little as possible and do
> things that we would agree are lazy. Mark's list of possible
> equivalents could just as easily show non-interop due to lazy
> application/IME implementers as it could to wild/crazy ones.
> 
> The IETF has a much richer history with lazy and/or rushed
> implementers. It would be good for us to keep them in our
> thoughts as we craft the documents.

Absolutely.   If one makes the assumption of lazy and
indifferent implementers and zone administrators --and, while I
think the IDNA experience has been different, I certainly agree
that we've seen large quantities of those in other areas-- then
the odds are that we will see no mapping at all because it is
easier to not do it than it is to do, much less thinks about.

     john