Determining the basic approach

[YAO Jiankang]

I support the WG adopting: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,  and (b)

For 10,  personally, I like to keep the dot separator as the special mapping still in the document.
or if the dot separator from the mandatory part of the protocol is removed, could we add some other sentenses in the protocol to say that "localized applications can automatically transform other dot separators into ASCII dot if they encounter other dots." ?
 

 I am neutral on the WG adopting:  7, 8, 9 and (a) 

 I am against the WG adopting: 11


YAO Jiankang

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Hoffman" <phoffman at imc.org>
To: <idna-update at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 1:20 AM
Subject: Determining the basic approach


> 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
>