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