How does this realignment conform to the plurality of independent voices on this list who have expressed a desire for a UTF-8 label encoding?
Also, how does it conform to prior statements: James Seng/Personal, Tue, 9 Oct 2001 17:30:02 +0800: > We encourage further submission of drafts but take note that no draft > will be accepted as wg drafts unless it comes with at least 7 > supportors. Some sort of warning that ongoing work would not be accepted would be preferred to an immediate cancellation of such efforts. I would suggest that you delay such rechartering until after the Salt Lake IETF meeting. If no suitable proposals are available by that time, a rechartering may make sense then. James Seng/Personal wrote: > > This is based a lot more on Dave's suggestion then mine. > > The Goal & Milestone section is revised. Note that the key milestone > which is really of interest to IESG is the "initial draft" and "move > forward for IESG". > > Please comment > > -James Seng > > --- > Domain Names are Internet identifiers. They are used both for > machine and human processing, so the form of a Domain Name must > be convenient for both processing venues. The current set of valid > Domain Name characters is limited to common Internet ASCII, which > is inadequate for the broad range of human Internet users. This > working group will produce a standards-track specification for > extending the range of characters that can be used in Domain Names, > by humans. The enhancement will be designed to minimize changes to > existing Domain Name software and operations. In particular, changes > to the DNS infrastructure of storage and exchange mechanisms will > be avoided. > > The technical approach for the current specification effort shall be to > permit use of international character, as recommended by the IAB, and > then encode the characters, to permit their transmission and storage > within existing DNS mechanisms. Hence this enhancement to the DNS > involves only end-user software. In particular software that needs to > be changed is restricted to: DNS client. No other modules will need > to be changed. > > Language information is not encoded in these identifiers. That is, > "names" from different languages are defined in a single namespace. > > The WG will rely on, and reference, work from established efforts to > internationalize digital characters, such as, Unicode Consortium and > ISO/IEC. Discussion of new codepoints, codepoint properties and > mappings between codepoints is appropriate for these other venues, > and is out of scope of this working group. > > The group will not address the question of what, if any, body should > administer or control usage of names that use this functionality. > > The group will identify consequences to the current deployed DNS > infrastructure, the protocols and the applications as well as transition > scenarios, where applicable. > > The working group will actively ensure communication with interested > groups who are studying the same, or related, topics. > > The Action Item(s) for the Working Group are: > > 1. An Informational RFC specifying the requirements for providing > International character sets in domain names. The document should > provide guidance for developing solutions to this problem, taking > localized (e.g. writing order) and related operational issues into > consideration. > > 2. A standard track specification on permitting international > characters > in domain names, including specifying any transition issues. > > 3. A standard track specification on an ASCII Compatible Encoding > (ACE), > to be used in the standard track specification on permitting > international > characters in domain names. > > 4. A standard track specification on normalization of domain name > identifiers for the purpose of string comparisons. This document may > include case folding, map outs, and prohibited characters. > > Goal & Milestone: > > Dec 2001 ACE specification send to IESG for advancement > > Nov 2001 domain name identifiers normalization draft last call > Dec 2001 domain name identifiers normalization draft send to IESG > for advancement > > Nov 2001 Draft of architecture relating input methods, namepreps > and zonefiles > Dec 2001 Second draft of architecture draft > Feb 2002 Architecture draft last call > Mar 2002 Architecture draft send to IESG for advancement > > Dec 2001 IDN Protocol draft wg last call > Jan 2002 IDN Protocol draft send to IESG for advancement -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
