[Ietf-not43] off-list comments on requirements

[Andrew Newton]

Eric,

Thanks for the comments.

On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 03:48:18PM -0500, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
> 
> This is posing i18n as a presentation probem. You may. I prefer to ask
> "what does this mean if the encoding is EBCDIC?" to help me through to
> the perfection of blindness. Characters can be distracting. If you are
> going down the UNICODE path, don't indicate it by design indirection.
> Locale has a specific meaning (see XPG 3 where we defined it, for better
> or worse, in a world pre-UNICODE).

Like I said, why start with an easy one.  Since one of the other
requirements is:

  3.1.2 Minimal Technical Reinvention

so I don't see the !43 process trying to tackle anything new in
i18n space.  If XML or LDAP or MIME or whatever does not support
i18n to the fullest extent possible, then we are just gonna have
to live with it.  The advantage here is that we have 17 years of
experience with newer technologies since RFC954.  But let's not
push it to 27 years.

> Your call, not mine, but why wouldn't the implementor(s) of the server
> and clients using same at the delegation "whois-not43.wabenaki.net" be
> interested in using "TLD tech" for an SLD? Ask Scott about this one, I
> recall we (provreg) got an IESG hit on overspecification on just this
> point.

It seems finding the words to express this are not going to be easy.
The intent is to narrow the scope so we don't need to consider the
requirements of things like alternate roots or 3rd level registries
in .com or domain registries in that vain.  By associating it back
to a gTLD or ccTLD, it would take into account .biz as well as .co.uk
and so forth.

-andy

-- 
Andrew Newton
VeriSign Applied Research
anewton@research.netsol.com