RE: Document Status?

> I think that would just about do it, modulo an issue about "on
> the wire" (see below).  

Yes, I wasn't very comfortable with using that term in my text.

> At worst, it would make things clear
> enough that the text could be fine-tuned in the next cycle if
> that proved necessary.

For "next cycle" = "when documents move to draft standard" I assume?

> It could probably even be clarified and streamlined further,
> e.g., after "does not attempt to define an 'internationalized
> host name'"
> 
> 	Just as has been the case with LDH names, some zone
> 	administrators may impose restrictions, beyond those
> 	imposed by the protocol, on the characters or strings
> 	that may be registered as labels in their zones.  Such
> 	restrictions do not impact the protocols themselves; a
> 	query for a name that does not exist will yield the same
> 	response regardless of the reason why it is not in the
> 	relevant zone.   Restrictions imposed on a per-zone
> 	basis MUST NOT have any impact on the behavior of the
> 	on-the-wire protocol, and MUST NOT assume that clients
> 	issuing queries or interpreting responses will have any
> 	knowledge of zone-specific restrictions or conventions.

Looks good to me.

Thanks,
  Erik