WG Review: Internationalized Domain Name (idn)

Sam Hartman hartmans-ietf at mit.edu
Thu Feb 28 22:22:24 CET 2008


>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> writes:


    Paul> The WG will start by finding consensus on the type of
    Paul> document or documents it wants as its output, most likely
    Paul> using the current work described above as a basis.

Paul, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I have a bit of a
problem with your rewording.  The current charter is intended to start
off with a gating consensus call.  The WG either decides to base its
work on the existing documents or it needs to come back to the entire
community with a recharter explaining what it is going to do.

What you propose writes a rather large blank check to the WG.  I agree
the WG should be given freedom to organize its documents as it likes.
I don't think the WG should be given the freedom to go off in an
initial direction we've never heard of without a community wide sanity
check.

Any chance we could work on wording that gives organizational flexibility without being as broad as you propose?


More information about the Idna-update mailing list