mappings-01

[Shawn Steele]

Mark Davis said:

> Although I've been arguing for a mapping phase, what I've been arguing for
> is one that is part of the lookup protocol, and so common across all
> implementations. An optional mapping -- one that is only a SHOULD -- and
> only for UI, is as far as I'm concerned, far worse than John's earlier
> version of protocol (
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-12).

> I suggest strongly we just drop the mapping document entirely, and just
> proceed with the previous basis:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-12.

> Mark

Although I also argued for mapping, I agree that the mapping document should just be dropped.

I think it will take too long to reconcile our positions for the mapping document, unnecessarily delaying adoption of the protocol document.  My current expectations are met by http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-12, specifically the current language in 5, 5.1 & 5.3.  In particular I don’t think 5.3 needs rewritten despite the Note.

- Shawn

 
http://blogs.msdn.com/shawnste