Consensus Call Tranche 7 (BiDi Model)

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

> ...
>
> I'm happy with saying "Registries that want to claim conformance to 
> IDNA2008 ...

I see two problems.

First, applicants that have spent six to seven figures to obtain and 
operate a registry under contract with ICANN have a very different risk 
model compared to registries which operate without contract. Some ccTLD 
NIC may ignore as non-binding any MUST or MUST NOT language, while it 
would be somewhat risk insensitive for a gTLD NIC to ignore language 
that appears in, or is referenced by, the contract that allows them to 
operate a registry. IANAL, etc.

Second, is IDNA200{3,X} as capable of conformance, let alone as 
important to conform (for insert your favorite motivation here, 
"security and stability" is one frequently used, I'm sort of partial to 
coherence and correctness, but YMMV) as 882/883 et seq?

Personally, I don't think so, but "conformance to IETF protocols ..." 
fails to distinguish degrees of mandatory to actually take serious.

Eric