Exception table (was: Re: 06FD and 06FE should be PVALID for
phoffman at imc.org
Wed Apr 2 17:34:36 CEST 2008
At 3:53 AM -0400 4/2/08, John C Klensin wrote:
>The principle, as I see it, is that
> At least until we are able to figure out what the rules
> should be for making exceptions (I don't expect that will
> happen in any deterministic way, ever, but hope I'm wrong),
> modifying the exceptions table should require a full
> standards-track process.
Fully agree. The two characters that has brought this topic to our
attention are excellent examples of the need for a standards-track
process. We already have statements going in many different
directions from various experts.
The exceptions table is needed and it is tricky (PVALID vs. CONTEXT*
as just one example). It needs to be changed carefully.
> The other is to do this by an IANA registry for which the
> conditions for modification required a process essentially
> equivalent to the above, even if getting that process
> requires an exception to, or updating of, the usual set of
> template IANA instructions.
This seems to have a higher likelihood of being most beneficial to
developers. The IANA registry should include a column for which RFC
added or changed each value in the table.
More information about the Idna-update