Security Considerations: bad split

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

Paul Hoffman skrev:
> At 9:03 AM +0100 12/7/08, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>   
>> Having re-read the security considerations on -bidi, I fail to see how
>> it's possible to comprehend these few paragraphs without just having
>> read -bidi.
>>     
>
> Are you saying that someone who is implementing IDNA200x will not have read -bidi? I thought -bidi was required for the protocol.
>   
I fully expect the overall registry designer to look at -bidi for 2 
seconds, then throw it in the direction of the string-processing expert 
and say "implement this". I expect him to pay much more careful 
attention to -rationale.
>> In the case of -bidi, I see the drive for an unified security
>> considerations section as quixotic, harmful and nonsensical.
>>     
>
> I can agree with the first and third, given that the document authors have bigger heels dug more firmly in the ground, but I do not see how a combined security considerations section could be "harmful".
>
>   
I think that if the documents are harder to understand because of a text 
change, that text change is harmful.

I don't think it's a big effect, but I have a definite opinion about its 
sign bit.

                       Harald