[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] Document Status?
> A moment of process concern:
> You have been given the specifics, including a specific Last Call
> posting to the IESG, private discussion from me, and an independent
> internet draft on the subject.
I have to vested interest in the IDNA specification but I'm merely
trying to help move things along in a productive fashion based on the
wishes of the WG rough consensus as guaged and expressed by the WG co-chairs
(which is to advance the set of specifications).
In my personal view the most productive way to get changes into the WG
rough consensus documents is to point out specific issues and suggested
text from clarifying things, since I have a hard time understanding how
the independent drafts can actually make the process move forward in
an effective manner. Of course, the WG is free to take a different
tack than my personal view e.g. to adopt your drafts and
move them forward instead of the current set of drafts - all I would expect
is discussions on the WG mailing list and a note from the co-chairs
to tell me to hold off moving the current IDNA draft through the process.
> I will add that asking someone to point to the place in a document
> where something is *missing* is a rather curious assignment. How can one
> point to something that does not exist?
Perhaps by suggesting specific limited text (a paragraph or so) which
fills in the missing piece?
> If it is correct that there is no difference, that should be
> stated in the document. Given the history with ASCII domain names, it is
> essential to document this issue explicitly.
Send a suggested paragraph of text.
> I will again note that even one of the IDNA authors is under the
> misapprehension that the set of valid characters might, somehow, be
> restricted later. The idea that we do not get to declare existing names
> invalid seems to be absent from the thinking on this topic.
And I will note that I brought up exactly this issue in an email
sent to the IDN list on May 6th with the subject
The resulting change in the IDNA document based on that comment
was rather minor, and I would welcome proposed text that make
the intent more clear.
> ps. you might also wish to comment on the fact that the IDNA specification
> makes a formal increase to the set of valid characters, from a subset of
> ASCII to (a subset of?) Unicode, yet this fact is not documented in the
> current specification.
To me this is clear from the Abstract in the idna spec.
But perhaps a sentence of two could be added to make this more clear.