Milestones

[Paul Hoffman]

Lisa said:

>Here are the TODOs on the charter from the meeting:
>  - Milestones

We cannot deal with milestones until we deal with what the documents 
are. There seemed to be support for my earlier request that we not 
specify that the WG be forced to use the format and structure of the 
four current documents. Given that, and given Ted Hardie's wording 
for dealing with the input fromthe design team, I propose the 
following:

==========

OLD:

The work is currently organized (though not constrained in
organization) as four Standards Track documents. If the WG does
not come to early consensus around the general direction from
this charter, the WG will need to stop and recharter so that
the IETF can understand what the WG proposes to do.

The Overview document with explanation and rationale is intended
for Standards Track status because it has definitions and
other normative text required by the other documents.  The
protocol specification explains how to map non-ASCII
characters into ASCII DNS labels.  It relies normatively on
two other documents that are separate for readability: the
bidirectional algorithm specification and the character
validity tables.  The validity of characters in IDNs is
almost exclusively based on Unicode properties but is
organized as tables and categories for readability.

Goals and milestones:

xxx 08: Revised Overview/Rationale document
xxx 08: WG Last Call for Protocol, Bidi and Tables documents
xxx 08: Revised Protocol, Bidi and Tables documents
xxx 08: Review Overview document again if needed
xxx 08: Request for publication for all documents

Documents:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klensin-idnabis-issues
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klensin-idnabis-protocol
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-faltstrom-idnabis-tables
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-alvestrand-idna-bidi

==========

NEW:

The work is initially organized as four documents: overview and 
rationale, protocol, table algorithm, and changes to the 
bidirectional algorithm. These documents are used as the basis for 
the discussion of the general direction of the work.

This working group will be providing extended public review of the 
output of a design team that has been working on the issues described 
below. This review-based approach is being used in part because of 
how the work was undertaken by the team; in particular, the design 
team has been working with IETF visibility and has solicited and 
received significant amounts of technical review already.  If the 
public review provided by this Working Group confirms the basic 
method outlined in the input documents, it is expected that the 
working group will be able to provide any needed changes and close in 
a short period of time.  If technical issues arise that indicate a 
fundamentally different approach must be taken, it is anticipated 
that this working group would close, and a new one with a less 
restricted charter be considered.

Goals and milestones:

Apr 08: WG formation
May 08: Decision on form and structure of the WG document set
Sep 08: WG Last Call on WG document set
Nov 08: IETF Last Call on WG document set

==========