These items sound IMHO like important groundwork for that latter document.
By focusing on such things as these early, a WG avoids getting bogged down
in religious wars OR reinventing yet another wheel. Once these two
Informational RFCs are written, either this WG or another can always "do the
math" to determine if there is already a workable solution in existence, or
more work is needed.
This is an interesting problem. I for one intend to come play.... :-)
-- Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: John Gilmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 12:36 AM
To: James Seng
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Marc
Blanchet; J. William Semich; Shigeki Goto; Tan Tin Wee; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Call for Discussion on I18N Domain Names WG Charter
> The Action Item(s) for the Working Group are
>
> 1. An Informational RFC specifying the requirements for I18N of Domain
> Names and considerations for developing a solution to the problem.
>
> 2. An Informational RFC documenting down the various proposal and
> Implementation of I18N of Domain Names.
Wouldn't it be better for the WG to have an explicit goal of defining
standards-track protocols and operational requirements for
internationalization of the domain name system? Informational RFC's
are useful, but not nearly as useful as interoperable standardized
protocol implementations.
John
