consensus item - "IDNA2008"

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Sun Dec 21 23:55:16 CET 2008


I agree with Paul's rationale, not with his conclusions.
I think that the present status of what has stabilized should be 
called IDNA2008. Because this is the way the WG sees-it end of 2008. 
It may very well turn out that this vision is to be reviewed in 2009 
due to WG-LC, IETF-LC, IESG, IAB or appeals. I think it will be 
simpler fopr everyone to call ithe new 2009 vision IDNA2009 so we may 
differentiate the two visions and still have a chance to get it is 
published in 2009.
jfc

At 19:00 21/12/2008, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>At 12:41 PM -0500 12/21/08, John C Klensin wrote:
> >Paul, with the understanding that I can live with it either way
> >--and that the suggestion was an attempt to see if we could
> >focus on getting the more substantive issues resolved before
> >spending too much more time on editorial details-- I'd like to
> >understand your reasoning.   I think Vint's suggestion (perhaps
> >modulo the comment in my note) is reasonable.  Do you see a need
> >to have a last-minute debate on this if we can reach agreement?
> >If so, why?
>
>Because a number of people expressed a preference for something 
>other than IDNA2008, and because I fully agree with you that we 
>should focus on the more substantiative issues first.
>
> >If we cannot quickly reach agreement, I still prefer "wait until
> >we are nearly finished".  But I don't see a problem with asking
> >the question.
>
>Fine. So, now we will have the discussion that you didn't want to have.
>
>I disagree with calling it IDNA2008 because it was not completed in 
>2008. We don't even know if it will be complete at all: we have not 
>had a WG last call, much less an IETF last call or an IESG debate. I 
>am far from convinced that the IESG is going to approve of what we 
>are doing, particularly the "allow seriously incompatible changes to 
>the protocol without changing the version string so that old clients 
>will not interoperate". We in this WG have agreed with that 
>direction, but the IETF has not, and the IESG has not.
>
>The reason I don't want to propose "IDNA2009" is that we might end 
>up with "IDNA2010" or, unfortunately, "IDNA2003". I think your 
>suggestion of having this discussion when we know what the protocol 
>will be was a good one.
>_______________________________________________
>Idna-update mailing list
>Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update



More information about the Idna-update mailing list