Rationale problems

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

 >>I note that the claim that it is reasonably safe to change
 >>DISALLOWED to PVALID has been suggested several times and has
 >>gotten little or no traction in the WG or at its meetings.   If
 >>anything, there is rough consensus in the other direction (not
 >>just "some people do feel..."). This one is up to Vint but,
 >>absent instructions from him, I do not believe it is appropriate
 >>to change this section (or the corresponding text in Tables) in
 >>the direction of weakening the requirement.

 >I may be just banging my head against a brick wall here, but nobody 
has been >willing to step up to the plate to say that "this causes me 
problems because of >situation X". No concrete examples have been cited. 
And if you can't give even one >single example of this being a problem, 
then you *at least* should qualify it to >indicate that it is an opinion.

OK, I'll bang my head in the other side of the brick wall one more time.

IF a character is DISALLOWED, and IF clients check against DISALLOWED as 
the protocol now requires them to do before they allow lookup of a 
domain name...

THEN anyone who wants to use a previously DISALLOWED name has to:
1) Change the specification to change DISALLOWED to PVALID
2) Wait until all software that he wishes to have access his domain name 
is upgraded before he can fully utilize his domain name.

In the period of 2), there will be some people able to use his new 
domain name, and some people who can't use it. If one of the first sends 
the name to one of the second, they will see inconsistent behaviour: 
What works for one person won't work for the other.

If this isn't a concrete example of a problem, I don't know what is.

                   Harald