Changing DISALLOWED (was Re: Reserved general punctuation)

Patrik Fältström patrik at frobbit.se
Fri May 2 11:37:52 CEST 2008


On 1 maj 2008, at 04.17, Mark Davis wrote:

> 1. We say that once DISALLOWED, always DISALLOWED.

This is what the RFC says. Only changes that happens "automatically"  
is UNASSIGNED -> "SOMETHING ELSE" when new Unicode versions are  
released.

> 2. We say that characters can only be removed from DISALLOWED by an
> obsoleting RFC.

Obsoleting an RFC can always change whatever is in the RFC. And this  
include (today) the algorithm, the exceptions table etc.

Yes, we have talked about "an expert group" and such things, and long  
term yes I absolutely think we will have such a process.

BUT, until then, the only reliable review process we have for changes  
is by issuing a new RFC.

> 3. We say that characters can only be removed from DISALLOWED by the
> committee/mechanism that controls CONTEXT/exceptions, and only in  
> extremis.

Can not happen (yet) as we have no such procedure in place. And if we  
have, and require for example a 4 week comment period, what is the  
real difference between this and issuing a new RFC?

> 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.

This is for me out, but mainly because it is today so extremely  
hypothetical that I do not see it being possible to discuss.

And, btw, it is _ALWAYS_ easy to make the barrier lower in the future  
for changes. Rising the barrier is not easy.

So I am a supporter of (2).

     Patrik



More information about the Idna-update mailing list