On 11:37 31/08/02, James Seng said: >My note is to clarify to the group (not just to Dave), that we are in this >process with the ADs. Most of the stuff going on are minor, request for >additional paragraph for clarification. But a few are substained enough to >warrant another partial wg last call (which is what we did).
May I offer a remark for this AD tuning? As a new comer I read the proposed text as will do reader. I am confused by two wordings and uncertain about others. Dave proposes a lexical: I think the idea helpful (as long as it respects the text). 1. would it not be a good occasion of getting rid of the odd phrase about domain/host names and to introduce a stable wording such as "internet name"and "international internet names" or "multilingual internet names" which corresponds to the compromise we actually use? I am concerned about: - the confusion it adds about what is a domain name, specialy in this complex context. We try to simplify and stabilize in discussing only strings, not what international lawyers may do with them. In making clear we only talk about alphanum pointers to IP addresses we migh help disjointing the legal and the technical aspects? - I am concerned about using a concept (international) for another (multilingual) when the international concept may become another issue with national DNS views. 2. I am confused about the implications of the proposed change of part 7. If I am right the target is to stick to the current common status of the DNS, whatever it may be. Could we not just define a "DNS character set" (as "0-9 a-Z -." today) and say that it can extend with DNS specifications. Would it not be clearer and be more compact? 3. is "IESG--" meant to stay, or is it temporary? Would this wording not add to the root management problems, 2 extra characters making a difference for many international TLD? jfc liaison to Eurolinc
