RE: update RFC 2396

Trying to redefine "URI" as the "same" protocol element
leads to insanity, since there's no versioning.
The only way of cutting the knot (after several years of
discussion) was to be clear that an "IRI" was a different
protocol element as a "URI".

IRI would recycle us at Proposed. I'm opposed to
including IRI in the URI draft if we're trying to
move URI to Standard.

The IRI draft still has several unresolved issues,
which I hope can be resolved quickly. They may be
obscure, but still can't be left open, e.g., RTL languages
in IRIs: if they're allowed, what is the bidi algorithm
to be used in rendering them?