Re: summary the discussion so far

>> So lets go back to IETF tradition. We need someone to write an i-d 
>> with all the concerns and requirements, and then make our discussion 
>> around that. 
> 
> No, let's not.

Making an I-D would resolve the IP issues, particularly copyright 
consideration.

> This is *not* an IETF project. It is an independent group, at least for 
> now. To date, the IETF method of creating requirements documents has 
> often failed badly. (For those who were not involved with IDNS, James 
> knows this very well from personal experience!)

Yes, IDN requirements was withdraw and was not published eventually. But 
the process of capturing the requirements helps to align a lot of 
discussion, of those within scope and those not.

It is a useful process so long the author(s) dont get too attached to it 
and wants to make it into an RFC later.

> That's great, and it's *not* an Internet Draft. I would really prefer to 
> see things like this than Internet Drafts, at least for many months.

Okay, lets keep it this way then if others has no objections.

-James Seng