Subject: [idn] Final remarks concerning requirments

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 11:00:36 -0500

If we pick and choose between contradictory, or underspecified statements,
we can end up with fewer statements which do, in principle, either cohere,
or are completely specified, or both. To be true, however, these statements
must correspond to implementations, or be capable of implementation.

Memos that document requirements, whether partially or completely, whether
contradictorily or harmoniously, have the innate utility of providing well
known, and possibly critically annotated, points of reference.

Several alternative sources exist for statements of technical requirements:

	- other memos originally published as Internet Drafts, 
	- other technical bodies also affiliated with ICANN, 
	- other technical bodies, not affiliated with ICANN, 

Additionally, alternative sources exist for statements of general requirements,
arguably these are ill-posed as "technical" memos, but in some contexts these
are considered "technical":

	- statements from MINC,
	- one or more statements from ICANN DNSO Constituencies,
	- functional specifications available from application, connectivity,
	  and nameserver vendors and operators,

I suspect neither of these two lists of alternative sources is exhaustive.

The corrollory is that of necessity, absent any distinct requirement
statement(s), other than those contained and satisfied in specific memos,
e.g., draft-ietf-idn-idna, draft-ietf-idn-nameprep, etc., alternative
requirements statements are not merely subordinate to, or co-equal with,
a IDN WG requirements document, but the better technical authority, for any
area outside the scope of requirements captured incidently in any specific
draft such as the idna set of drafts.

I've never anticipated that the IETF would become generally irrelevant to
the problem of 7-bit processing, retaining only specific relevance as one
source of niche presentation-level work-arounds. I hope this isn't what this
WG chooses, and urge those not predisposed otherwise to express a preference
that a requirements document remains under the change control of the working
group.

Fixing it, which in practice means at least directing its editors to maintain
the utility of the draft, is a distinct issue, and already addressed by one
assertion of process error.

Eric

---

From: [email-masked] (J. William Semich)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 14:07:17 -0500

See Network World Fusion at
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2001/1212domain.html for the full text.

IETF wraps up foreign-language domain name effort

By Carolyn Duffy Marsan
Network World Fusion, 12/12/01

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah - The Internet's main standards-setting body
is putting the final touches on a set of specifications that will
support foreign-language domain names instead of today's English
language derivatives.

<snip>

The IETF's IDN Working Group ... is now ready to send three documents
outlining the technical details of their approach to the full IETF
and the IETF leadership for final approval. A proposed standard
could be released as early as March, IETF participants say.

"Our basic architecture is done. We just have to forward the
documents for final approval," says Marc Blanchet, co-chair of the
working group and an IT consultant with Canadian firm Viagenie.
"We've really been under a great deal of scrutiny and review
[by the IETF leadership], so my guess is that there will be no problems."

...