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

[James Seng <jseng@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Olafur,

Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> >The goal of the group is to investigate and specify the requirements
> >for supporting internationalized (i18n) domain names. The scope will be
> >limited to the technical issues not the politics.
> >
> >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.
> >
> Suggestion:
> 1. An Informational RFC specifying requirements for representation of
> International Character Sets in DNS names and records. The document
> should provide guidance for developing solutions to this problem.

Noted. Thanks. Will update.

> Novice person reading the paragraph above will not know what I18N stands
> for.

It is already defined above. I believe I18N and L10N is common shorthand.

> >2. An Informational RFC documenting down the various proposal and
> >   Implementation of I18N of Domain Names.
> Suggestion:
> "Informational RFC or RFC's documenting various proposals for
> extending DNS to support International character sets.

As I explain before, I18N of Domain Names may or may not require a
modification or extension of DNS. Thus, I believe this phrasing may
not be appropriate. 

> >3. A Standard RFC defining standard-track protocols and operational
> >   requirements for I18N of Domain names.
> 
> It is premature to say this is appropriate for a working group that
> is chartered to examine requirements. The BOF consensus was that
> solutions where outside the charter of the proposed WG. IF the
> requirements documents are clear in what is needed then the
> technical solution might be straight forward. Eliminate this line!.

The original draft only contains the first 2 Action Item(s). The 3rd
was added after a point made by John Gilmore.

Please see the mailing list archive 
http://www.idns.org/archive/ietf-idn.9911
on previous discussions.

A

> >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
> 
> These milestones only apply to work item 1, correct ?

Correct. I need to updated :P
I remember the consensus is that the work item 1 is most important.
I will add some points about 2.

> Just remember the role of this working group is to focus attention on
> what the Internationalization (and Localization) requirements for DNS are.
> Trying to force feed a SINGLE proposal into the standards track is not
> acceptable.

-James Seng