Page History
...
Answer (Roger Carney, GoDaddy and former T/T PDP WG member): Judging intent of “should”/”must” is a bit tough for me as I was just a loose observer of this IRD WG. But as this language is from a non-consensus policy working group that the T/T PDP WG reviewed and considered (as asked to do so by the GNSO and Board), it’s exact form and probably intent was not carried on by the T/T PDP WG. In comparing T/T Recommendation 2 to this IRD recommendation you can see that they are close in meaning but I think purposefully not exact (i.e. “tagging” and “always be available” were not carried through).
Answer (w/ name and affiliation): James Galvin, Afilias, T/T PDP WG member, Chair IRD Expert WG): Taken in context, my personal recollection is that the use of "should" is synonymous with the use of "MUST" in an IETF protocol specification context. However, the statement itself must be evaluated in the context of the full document. Section 2.3 describes the technical considerations that manifest given a mandatory requirement to be present. Section 4.3 defines the verb "to tag" as a requirement for knowing with deterministic certainty the language and script in use, explicitly not suggesting a specific solution. Section 7 recommends next steps given acceptance of the recommendations from the final report, in particular a follow-up effort to review the policy implications of the recommendations. Taken all together, the IRD Expert working group is advice to the community regarding an idealized solution to the issue of "internationalized registration data". It should be understood to describe a goal the community should want to attain eventually, given it is not possible to do it all at once.
Answer (w/ name and affiliation):
...
