<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Mark,<div><br></div><div>we will have to see where the consensus forms - at the moment, there seems to be motion towards a more permissive formulation than requiring the mapping in protocol.</div><div><br></div><div>vint</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div><div>On Jul 5, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Mark Davis ⌛ wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">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 (<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-12">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-12</a>).<br> <br>I suggest strongly we just drop the mapping document entirely, and just proceed with the previous basis: <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-12">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-12</a>.<br> <br clear="all">Mark<br> <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 08:27, Vint Cerf <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vint@google.com">vint@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Taking advantage of this exchange to underscore for the working group<br> what I consider to be a remarkably perceptive observation:<br> <div class="im"><br> quoting from the authors:<br> <br> >> In the case of mapping user input, we could not give a good<br> >> reason why this is needs to be required. It is clearly a good<br> >> idea because it will prevent user surprise, and we say so.<br> >> However, mapping does not promote interoperability between DNS<br> >> clients and servers, nor between applications. Things that are<br> >> just good ideas where the exceptions cannot be well defined<br> >> are not, in my opinion, applicable targets of RFC 2119<br> >> "SHOULD".<br> <br> </div>with the specificity of the new version of the mapping document<br> and the rationale above as to its application, I urge the WG<br> participants<br> to raise any additional substantive issues promptly.<br> <br> We need to reach closure on all documents at the end of the first<br> day of the meetings in Stockholm.<br> <br> I also suggest that the mappings document and the removal of<br> RFC 2119 language eliminates the need for the "mapping forms"<br> that Mark Davis suggested, since the mappings are suggested but<br> not required. The IDNABIS framework establishes clear rules for<br> defining what characters are allowed and what practices are<br> recommended for registration and look up.<br> <br> I hope and believe that we are very close to consensus on the<br> IDNABIS revisions.<br> <font color="#888888"><br> vint<br> </font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br> ><br> ><br> ><br> ><br> <br> _______________________________________________<br> Idna-update mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:Idna-update@alvestrand.no">Idna-update@alvestrand.no</a><br> <a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update</a><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>