Security Considerations: bad split

[Paul Hoffman]

At 10:08 AM -0800 12/5/08, Mark Davis wrote:
>I believe that is more confusing to users than a unified security considerations section. Most people that care about security want a comprehensive discussion of the security impact of IDNA2008, and splitting it up into separate sections only confuses the poor reader.

Agree.

>The use of IDNA2008 is also just pointlessly confusing. Three years from now, it will just look dumb to use the name IDNA2008 for something that actually came out in 2009. And it would be just so very simple to fix; taking each of the authors 5 minutes with search&replace to make the change in their next version, so I just don't understand the objection.

Agree. It is clear we won't even be at IETF Last Call in 2008, much less a standard.

>But if the rest of the wg doesn't care, I won't push this any further.

Agree as well.