mappings-01

[John C Klensin]

Vint,

While I agree with all of this, I do need some advice about what
should be said in the Definitions and Protocol documents about
mapping.   The former can say something equivalent to "that
document is part of the series" without any normative language,
but Protocol has to either invoke mapping as a step (presumably
with MAY or SHOULD in the sentence, recreating the issue that
Paul and Pete decided to avoid) or perhaps just mention it in
the discussion of preprocessing steps.   I will assume that the
latter is closer to what we want, but would appreciate
clarification from you and the WG as soon as possible.

     john


--On Saturday, July 04, 2009 11:27 -0400 Vint Cerf
<vint at google.com> wrote:

> 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.
>...