Consensus Call Tranche 4/5 (Settled Textual Issues and IANA Considerations

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

NO

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 05:00:24PM -0400,
 Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote 
 a message of 250 lines which said:

> A YES response means that you agree with all of topics 4 and 5.

There are several topics, some quite consensual and some much more
debatable. Because of the way the poll is structured, I have to say
NO.

> If NO is the response, a reason for that position needs to be
> stated.

Why is it only for NO? Is it to increase the chances of a YES?

> (4.b) The explanation of the symbol prohibition in Rationale-02
> and later is satisfactory.   (R.25)

Not at all. Unless you consider FUD like talking about "dangerous
characters" (9.2.1.1) as an explanation.

> (4.c) The explanation of requirements on registries, the role
> of registration policy, and their scope in Rationale-02 and
> Protocol-05 is satisfactory (R.9, R.27, P.6).

No (5.2). A lot of handwaving ("it is generally believed that labels
containing characters from more than one script are a bad practice")
but no explanation.

> (4.d) The description of the Bidi changes between IDNA2003 and
> IDNA2008 in Rationale-02 is satisfactory.   (R.15)

No. 6.1 says "it is likely that some strong suggestions should be made
about display order as well" without demonstrating it, except by a
reference to a quite different problem (the Janet order).