mappings-01
Shawn Steele
Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com
Wed Jul 8 02:03:20 CEST 2009
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
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list