----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Nordmark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It's also believed that the set of solutions that satisfy the requirements > document in its current form is the null set. > If that is indeed the case there should be no suprise that IDNA, just > like any other proposal, can't satisfy all of them. > > *If* the requirements document indeed captured the minimum requirements > and there were multiple fully worked out proposals then the document could be > useful as a guide in selecting between the proposals. > But given that the requirement document doesn't appear to (correctly) capture > the minimum requirements it would seem like this approach assumes that the > WG would spend time first on correcting the requirements document then > looking around for additional fully specified proposals. > This would not be fast process.
If we drop the agreed-on requirement document that solutions can't satify yet, we will look like a ostrich who buries its head in the sand before a tiger. What really matter is whether or not we should ignore unsatisfied requirement items. Fixing old one and writing new one, either one cannot avoid this issue. > > Thus assuming we all actually want to see an IDN solution soon it seems > to make a lot more sense to drop the requirement document. No one would like to eat unbaked or half-baked or rotten cakes, however soon they come out. If IETF is ever driven by consumers and work for consumers, current provider-centric haste and biases in IDN WG could not have been tolerated. > The WG last call, IETF last call, and IESG review can then focus on > more basic questions like: > 1. Does the proposed protocol work? > 2. Can it be introduced in some incremental fashion? > 3. Can it deal with the future? > > > Writing another new shorter requirements document, intentionally avoiding > > the following hot-debated yet-unsatisfied requirement issues, looks poor and > > is unlikely to succeed. No one would like to go to this path. It is not a > > "path". > > Note that John and the chairs did not suggest a shorter requirements document > but instead a document which describes the problem the WG set out to solve > (and presumably something about the believed constraints for solving the > problem). > > If it happens to be that the requirements document, even after resolving > the hotly debated issues you are alluding to, ends up so strict that there > still does not exist a solution, what would we have accomplished? I am not so pessimistic, if we become less political than now and in SLC. Soobok Lee
