Re: [idn] [Last Call] Working Group Charter

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 09:30 25.11.99 +0800, James Seng wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Last call for WG Charter. Please comment if any there is any more
> modification. I would like to submit this to Patrik this weekend.

You could PROPOSE it to Patrik this weekend; involving him in the discussion
is a good idea. But it's not finished.


> -James Seng
>
> --- CUT HERE ---
> Internationalised Domain Names (idn)
> ------------------------------------
>
> Co-chairs:
>   James Seng <jseng@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>   Marc Blanchet <Marc.Blanchet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Mailing List:
>   ietf-idn@xxxxxxxx
>   subscription requests: ietf-idn-request@xxxxxxx
>   Archive: http://www.idns.org/ietf/
>
> The goal of the group is to investigate and specify the requirements
> for supporting internationalized (i18n) domain names.

This is OK, but in conflict with the action items. More later.

>  The scope will be
> limited to the technical issues not the politics.

Suggested sentence:

The scope of the group is to investigate the possible means of doing this 
and what technical impact they will have on the users of such names and on 
other users and administrators of the domain name system.

The group will not address the question of what, if any, body should 
administer or control usage of names that use this functionality.


> 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.

OK


> 2. An Informational RFC documenting down the various proposal and
>    Implementation of I18N of Domain Names.

I'd like this to be a bit more precise:

2. An Informational RFC documenting some of the proposals that have been
   made for internationalization of domain names, and evaluates the technical
   impact that would result from large scale implementation of these.

The evaluation is the most important part of the RFC.
This document does not necessarily have to be published, either!


> 3. A Standard RFC defining standard-track protocols and operational
>    requirements for I18N of Domain names.

This one is where things get dangerous. I'd like to prefix it with a new 
sentence:

"If, after considering the mechanisms for i18n of domain names, and the 
operational impact of them, the group reaches consensus that there is a 
single proposal that can be implemented without undue harm to the DNS, the 
group may agree with the ADs to undertake writing the following document:"

> Milestones:
>   Jan 2000  First draft of the requirements document
>   Mar 2000  Presentation and discussion at IETF-Adelaide
>   May 2000  Second version of the draft
>   Jun 2000  IETF presentation and wg last call

Missing quite a few milestones, actually. Suggested additions and changes:

  Jan 2000  First draft of the requirements document
  Feb 2000 First draft of mechanisms document
  Mar 2000  Presentation and discussion at IETF-Adelaide
  May 2000  Second version of the requirements document (CHANGE)
  May 2000 Second draft of mechanisms document
  Jun 2000  IETF presentation and wg last call on requirements and mechanisms
  Jul 2000 Requirements and mechanisms sent to IESG for publication
           as Informational
  Jul 2000 Decision on whether to proceed with standards track document
  Aug 2000 First draft of standards track document
  Nov 2000 Last draft of standards track document, WG Last Call
  Dec 2000 Standards track document sent to IESG for IETF Last Call
  Mar 2001 RFC published, group closes

It's somewhat strange to have the milestones in the charter that can be
cancelled if the July 2000 decision goes to "no", but I think it is reasonable
to give our best guess at the present moment for these too.

                     Harald


--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx