Comments on draft-ietf-idnabis-mappings-03

[Andrew Sullivan]

Dear colleagues,

I have read draft-ietf-idnabis-mappings-03.  

As I suggested in my previous message to the list on this topic
(http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2009-July/004969.html),
I was sort of expecting we'd use this document to include some
suggestions to registries about sensible restriction policies.  But I
asked for thoughts about that last time and there was silence, so
maybe nobody agrees with me.

I am a little lukewarm on the draft.  Apart from the issue above, I
think the document is ready to go, assuming this is what we want to
say.  Yet its content is a little flabby as recommendations go.  I can
imagine a reader being a little surprised at this advice, for example:

   These are a minimal set of mappings that an application should
   strongly consider doing.  Of course, there are many others that might
   be done.

That boils down to, "You might want to do this.  Or not.  Or something
else.  Up to you."  I know why we're saying this, but I would not be
surprised if people object to such thin advice.  If that's all the
advice we want to offer, however, this is the right document and it
should go ahead.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.