Q1 is mapping on lookup permanent or transitional?

[John C Klensin]

--On Tuesday, March 31, 2009 12:05 -0400 Vint Cerf
<vint at google.com> wrote:

> Q1: Should the proposed mapping on lookup in a revised
> IDNA2008   protocol specification be a permanent feature of
> the protocol or   should it have a finite lifetime? Should it
> be required or optional?
> 
> This question is intended to be independent of the actual
> mapping that   is done. If the question cannot be answered
> without having specific   mapping in mind, we should recompose
> the question accordingly.

I continue to believe that the original goals that led to the
IDNA2008 design, including reversibility of transformations in
and out of the ACE (Punycode) form, are important.  I also
believe that the Internet, and the amount of content on it, will
continue to expand.   Therefore I believe that mapping should be
supported only as a transitional mechanism from IDNA2003 and,
ideally, only for protocols for which the IDNA2003 mappings have
become well-established.