goal and structure of draft-klensin-idnabis-issues

[John C Klensin]

--On Friday, 02 February, 2007 14:29 -0800 Erik van der Poel
<erikv at google.com> wrote:

> John,
> 
> As I read your idnabis-issues Internet Draft, I found that it
> was
> difficult to decide what types of comments to make, since I
> didn't
> know what the goal of the draft was:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-idnabis-issu
> es-00.txt


> Is this draft intended to be the 1st of a number of drafts
> that will
> eventually lead to an RFC about the issues and some of the
> proposals?
> Or will they lead to an "IDNA Overview" RFC, similar to RFC
> 3490?

it is intended to see if we can agree on what we are talking
about and what is to be done, then to be split up into at least
two pieces, one of which replaces 3490 and the other of which
provides background on the decisions.  Since some of what is in
it has impact on nameprep and stringprep or their successors,
and the closely-related draft-alvestrand-idnabis-bidi has a
different set of impacts, "at least" is important and other
organizations are possible.

> Also, it might be easier to make concrete comments if the
> draft was
> divided into sections corresponding to:
> 
> (1) issues
> (2) solutions (or principles for solutions)

Watch for -01, probably next week.

> There may be some need for a section (0) on background. Also,
> section
> (2) could be put in a separate Internet Draft?

That is the plan, but not until there is some greater consensus
about where we are going to end up.  See above.

> To sum up, I believe it would be easier to comment on the
> draft if
> there were a clear distinction between perceived issues and
> proposed solutions.

You have company, i.e., you are not the first to make that
comment.  I work --and think and analyze proposals--
differently.   I can't make any claim that my way is better,
just different.  If there are more people like you than there
are people like me, the split will occur sooner rather than
later (although probably not for -01).

regards,
   john