Changing DISALLOWED (was Re: Reserved general punctuation)

Vint Cerf vint at google.com
Thu May 1 17:55:54 CEST 2008


Paul,

I am hearing from others too that they are more comfortable with a  
higher bar, such as 1 or 2. In the interest of some flexibility  
perhaps #2 is a reasonable compromise between #1 and #3?

v

On May 1, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> Excerpted:
> At 7:17 PM -0700 4/30/08, Mark Davis wrote:
>> 1. We say that once DISALLOWED, always DISALLOWED.
>>
>> 2. We say that characters can only be removed from DISALLOWED by  
>> an obsoleting RFC.
>>
>> 3. We say that characters can only be removed from DISALLOWED by  
>> the committee/mechanism that controls CONTEXT/exceptions, and only  
>> in extremis.
>>
>> 4. We say that characters can only be removed from DISALLOWED by  
>> the committee/mechanism that controls CONTEXT/exceptions, and but  
>> that committee is not designed to be conservative.
>>
>> I think #3 would be the best, and #2 acceptable, while #1 and #4  
>> are extremes that could cause problems.
>
> I respectfully disagree that #3 would be best because the IETF has  
> had numerous problems with "committe/mechanism" setups,  
> particularly ones that shut down for a few years and then need to  
> be restarted. I do not think that a committee for IDNs would be any  
> better suited to this than other committees in the past. It's a  
> problem with the IETF, but it is one we should be honest about.
>
> My preference would be #1/#2, which really are the same. It should  
> be made clear that they are talking about a standards-track RFC,  
> which means that it needs to be approved by the IESG, but that has  
> a higher chance of predicable results and opportunities for  
> community input that #3.
> _______________________________________________
> 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