Zita,
> Last revision of IDN Requirements Document.
s/Last/Latest/, unless you know otherwise.
As to the intended scope section. Some of the requirements are arch-*
independent, and some are not. Those that are not are encode-as-ASCII
specific. The awkward passive voice and oddly sited recommendation
in a requirements draft could be made ACE-affirming, rather than try
to straddle a fence, viz,
It is recommended that solutions not necessarily be within
the DNS itself, but could be a layer interjected between the
application and the DNS.
Personally I don't agree with such a recommendation, but if there is
rough consensus, it could be clearer.
> [30] regarding equilavence rules removed
Now I know who suggested zone-specific semantics and why. However,
removal of [30] is neither a MUST NOT, nor a MUST, in fact, it is
not anything.
Eric
Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-07.txt
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:34:11 -0700
- [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requirements-... Zita Wenzel
- Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requ... Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
- Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requ... Andrea Vine
- Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requ... Florian Weimer
- Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requ... Florian Weimer
- Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requ... Dan
- Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requ... Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requ... Andrea Vine
- Re: [idn] draft-ietf-idn-requ... Dan
