Re: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-lace-00.txt

[Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Harald,

changing the prefix will not be easy operationally, the move from ra-- to
bq-- had operational and political hurdles. Changing to the next prefix
will require coordination between the Registry, Registrars, Multi lingual
Technology Providers, and any one else whom happened to write some
software that used the prefix 'bq--'

I think someone really needs to write a draft criteria explaining what the
requirements are for a "testbed" so that this situation *never* happens
again.

-rick


On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> At 20:26 08/11/2000 +0000, Brian W. Spolarich wrote:
> >On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
> >
> >| Maybe when we start comparing ACEs, we should use different prefixes
> >| for each.
> >
> >   How about '<n>q--', where N is an identifier chosen by the ACE draft
> >author?
> 
> I think each RACE draft should choose a different prefix, with no special 
> considerations.
> I think it is the clear consensus of the group, the authors and the WG 
> chairs that the prefix of the final (single) RFC shold NOT be ANY of the 
> ones in the I-D; using different prefixes for each draft helps experimentation.
> 
> 
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
> +47 41 44 29 94
> Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no
> 
>