Version -02 of the topics draft

[John C Klensin]

--On Sunday, 20 April, 2008 16:52 -0700 Paul Hoffman
<phoffman at imc.org> wrote:

> At 4:44 PM -0400 4/20/08, John C Klensin wrote:
>> * To accurately reflect the assumptions behind the new
>> proposal,  item 2.3, which now reads "Disallow most symbol
>> characters" should  really read "Disallow all symbol and
>> punctuation characters except  where special exceptions are
>> necessary" or something to that effect.
> 
> Agree, minus the "all".

ok
 
>> * I'm not sure I understand how 2.8 is different from 2.9.
>> Was  this an editing error in which the parenthetical remark
>> in 2.8 was  inserted but 2.9 not removed?
> 
> No. this is intentional. This is lifted pretty much directly
> from the bidi draft. (8) is about domain names in places where
> you would expect them, (9) is about domain names in free text
> such as paragraphs.

ok.  You (and the bidi authors if needed) might think about how
to make the distinction more clear in the text of your notes.

>> * While I have no problem with your Section 3, I wonder
>> whether we  get onto a slippery slope that leads to ratholes
>> vis-a-vis the  charter by opening a discussion of any
>> IDN-related issue that anyone  participating in the WG wants
>> to discuss.   I'm not personally  opposed to discussing
>> either of the issues that you list, but wonder  if we can
>> devise a way of filtering additional issues that does not 
>> bog us down in reviewing each of the proposals that was
>> introduced  into the original WG.
> 
> That's for the WG chair, not this draft. So far, we have had
> very few (as in, two) suggestions that would go here. I would
> rather discuss them at the beginning (like, now) and then
> close the discussion of additions.

I have no problem with that approach.

>> * In Section 4, the statement is made as if it were a WG
>> conclusion.  I don't believe that we have reached any
>> consensus on that subject,  which is intimately related to
>> the document reorganization issues  that you have wanted the
>> WG to address, so it should be listed as a  topic for
>> discussion.
> 
> Fully disagree. Each RFC that this WG produces will have a
> Security Considerations section, even if it is a stub pointing
> to another one. Those are the rules for RFCs; we don't get to
> punt here.

If that is all you intended, then I obviously have no problem
with it.  I took the text as trying to avoid having a
consolidated Security Considerations section in one document
that was referenced from the others, possibly with each of those
having additional document-specific discussions as needed.

    john