Determining the basic approach

[James Seng]

I support 1, 2, 3. I somewhat support (b) (afterall, I am involved in
the drafting).

I am neutral about 7, 8, 9.

I am reserved about 4, 5, 6 as I havent fully grasp the implications
of the changes.

I am against 11 and (a).

For 10, I hope this would also include adding more dot separators, e.g. U+FF61.

-James Seng

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 1:20 AM, Paul Hoffman <phoffman at imc.org> wrote:
> Greetings again. According to our charter, one of the first tasks of this WG
> is to determine whether we are going to make "a change to the basic approach
> taken in the design team documents". To that end, I have circulated a few
> versions of a draft that lists all of the basic approaches embodied in the
> current design team documents:
>
>  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-idna200x-topics-03.txt
>
>  In order to make our deadlines (and I really like Patrik's suggestion in
> his most recent document that we call this effort IDNA2008 so we try to meet
> that goal), we should start that discussion sooner rather than later.
>
>  Using the draft's numbering of topics that are different between IDNA2003
> and the design team documents,
>
>  I support the WG adopting: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10,
>
>  I am neutral on the WG adopting: 8, 9
>
>  I am against the WG adopting: 11, a, b
>  _______________________________________________
>  Idna-update mailing list
>  Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>  http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>