Subject: Re: [iucg] mappings-01

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:50:51 +0200

At 14:40 04/07/2009, Vint Cerf wrote:
>first, major thanks for this new version of the mapping document.
>
>second, do the two of you have a preference for how this mapping 
>should be referenced?
>Many participants have suggested that the mapping SHOULD be applied 
>so as to convey the importance of the regularity the document 
>produces but allowing  for circumstances that might justify not 
>mapping. I would underscore the weight given in IETF  terms to 
>"SHOULD" as one is expected to adhere to the advice and only deviate 
>for very good reasons.

Vint,
what every one wants IMHO is network stability, and then flexibility 
in front of accepted or necessary innovation once it is enough 
documented. It is well known that I am a fierce opponent to any MUST 
in here, for that reason. I think the "SHOULDs", with all what this 
term implies in the IETF context, are adequate.

The "very good reasons" I see are cross-technology net neutralility, 
national sovereignty, IAB approved architectural evolution, RFC 3869 
justified opposition to commercial leadership in technical issues. 
What we need is to be able influence a lasting international culture 
that protects the IDNA concept in legal, contractual, operational, 
business, cultural fields. And also in the off-network application 
area. However, we do not want to carve the today vision of the IDNA 
into a status-quo that would eventually result in obsolete commercial 
niches opposing the common interest.

I still need to print Pete and Paul's text and read it carefully with 
france@large, iucg and projet.fra people. Should we disagree with 
some details we would report them, in full trust.
This being said, I fully support "SHOULDs". We need them inorder to 
reasonably build interoperability on top of IDNA.

JFC