Consensus Call Tranche 1 (Document Organization)

[Vint Cerf]

On Oct 6, 2008, at 4:54 PM, Vint Cerf wrote:

> DUE DATE: October 10, 2008 (ET)
>
> Place your reply here: YES
>
> COMMENTS:
>
>
> Procedure:
>
>
> There are several decisions that the working group will need to  
> make to confirm consensus.  I will send a series of proposals over  
> the next two weeks requesting YES or NO positions on each within a  
> 4 day window. If NO is the response, a reason for that position  
> needs to be stated. If there is a clear consensus based on  
> responses or in the absence ofa consensus against each proposal, it  
> will be assumed that the proposal is acceptable to the Working Group.
>
>
> Parenthesized symbols (e.g., "(R.1)") after the items are  
> references to the issues lists where additional explanations can be  
> found, as sent by John Klensin as body parts "idnabis-protocol- 
> issues-rev3" and "idnabis-rationale-issues-03" on a message titled  
> 'Issues lists and the "preprocessing" topic'  to the working group  
> on 18 August (http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2008- 
> August/002537.html)
>
> This group needs to get its documents out; it is behind its  
> original schedule. It should be noted that the IDN ccTLD and gTLD  
> selection initiatives at ICANN have already begun so that delay may  
> weaken the IETF's ability to assist in a rational deployment of IDNA.
>
>
> (1) Document organization
>
>
> (1.a) The Rationale document should be retained to support  
> implementors whose work requires that they understand the reasoning  
> behind certain design choices.  The philosophy of IDNA2008 relies  
> strongly on the ability of registries (especially those of top- 
> level domains) to properly constrain the choice of labels even if  
> they are composed of characters that are protocol valid.  (R.1)
>
> (1.b) While there has been debate about whether or not the content  
> of the Rationale document should contain normative material, it  
> seems expedient to agree on the content of Rationale for Proposed  
> Standard without attempting to separate it into multiple parts.  
> Therefore, it appears that the WG consensus is that: The normative  
> material (definitions) should be retained in Rationale.
>
> A YES means you concur with the consensus statements above.
>
> The alternative is:
>
> - The normative material should be removed from Rationale and  
> extracted to a separate document (for example Terms and Concepts)  
> even if this lengthens the WG's target dates for an unknown period  
> of time.  Note that there may be controversy about what material is  
> normative and what is not; that is a separate consensus issue and  
> may also take an unknown period of time to resolve   (R.2)
>
>
> NOTE NEW BUSINESS ADDRESS AND PHONE
> Vint Cerf
> Google
> 1818 Library Street, Suite 400
> Reston, VA 20190
> 202-370-5637
> vint at google.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20081007/4ad2eb31/attachment.htm