mappings-01

[Vint Cerf]

Taking advantage of this exchange to underscore for the working group
what I consider to be a remarkably perceptive observation:

quoting from the authors:

>> In the case of mapping user input, we could not give a good
>> reason why this is needs to be required. It is clearly a good
>> idea because it will prevent user surprise, and we say  so.
>> However, mapping does not promote interoperability between DNS
>> clients and servers, nor between applications. Things that are
>> just good ideas where the exceptions cannot be well defined
>> are not, in my opinion, applicable targets of RFC 2119
>> "SHOULD".

with the specificity of the new version of the mapping document
and the rationale above as to its application, I urge the WG  
participants
to raise any additional substantive issues promptly.

We need to reach closure on all documents at the end of the first
day of the meetings in Stockholm.

I also suggest that the mappings document and the removal of
RFC 2119 language eliminates the need for the "mapping forms"
that Mark Davis suggested, since the mappings are suggested but
not required. The IDNABIS framework establishes clear rules for
defining what characters are allowed and what practices are
recommended for registration and look up.

I hope and believe that we are very close to consensus on the
IDNABIS revisions.

vint

>
>
>
>