[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-lace-00.txt
this problem can be seen as a versioning problem. see
At/À 14:20 2000-11-11 -0800, Rick H Wesson you wrote/vous écriviez:
>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
>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
> > --
> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, email@example.com
> > +47 41 44 29 94
> > Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no
Normos (http://www.normos.org): Internet standards portal:
IETF RFC, drafts, IANA, W3C, ATMForum, ISO, ... all in one place.