Re: Re: idn-uri document

I came in here just to say two things as a "user"
- the punycode thing seems OK but the DNS aspects are
   inadequate"
- the text you produced is not easily understandable.
I was said to be a troll for the second point. May be
could we also look at the second one?

At 19:23 05/11/02, John C Klensin wrote:
>--On Thursday, 31 October, 2002 23:40 +0100 Erik Nordmark

>But, even in that case, we haven't permitted profile variations _within_ 
>IDNA: a user, site, or registry cannot select a different stringprep 
>profile, and that is a Good, probably necessary, thing.

"probably" necessary ???
At this date, this rises a lot of question.
All I found was a very early commitment to that in the process.
I did not read everythng yet.
Any reason why it is "certainly" necessary?
(a part from obvious non technical reasons)

  But much the same argument applies to the type of use Martin
>contemplates.   IDNA, as written, is _one_ protocol.  It is not
>a toolkit for building other protocols, nor is it a a set of
>profiles that other protocols can adopt.  Those two may be much
>the same thing in practice.  As soon as we say "you should use
>that operation from IDNA, but without some particular step" we
>head down a slippery slope.  That is especially true because
>IDNA contains (or appears to contain) a good deal of normative
>text outside the particular of, e.g., ToASCII.  It is not clear