Consensus Call Tranche 1 (Document Organization)

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Wed Oct 8 05:24:37 CEST 2008


At 17:54 07/10/2008, John C Klensin wrote:
>Jefsey,
>With the understanding, as usual, that I will do whatever Vint
>concludes represents consensus tells me too, I think your
>conclusion is at variance with positions you have expressed
>about your own users and readership.

John
You must understand that I am right know to appeal IAB in order to 
have the right to answer your mail.

However, with the same understanding as yours regarding the respect 
owed to Vint's conclusion, I can say that (1) I am in full agreement 
with the general lines of your comment, (2) I think our duty is no 
more only to best document IDNA, but to tackle the AuccNSO ICANNDNA 
years of confusion ahead, and how then to restore network 
interoperability and stability.

I think the only way we have is that :
(1) every developper blindly develop along the same [default] IETF protocol.
(2) so we can further on clarify/transition more simply through 
rationale tuning.

This WG is not in a position to agree on what IDNA200X is : it cannot 
agree on what is normative or not.
So let publish the minimum set of specifications asap to replace 
IDNA2003. Otherwise RFC 4690 will not be read more than before, but 
it willl be quoted everywhere against Chriss Dispain's and Paul 
Twomey's fast crash. We need an IETFDNA, with the minimum chances of 
rationale conflict with possible others. So the rational can be _common_

Then let see what happens, and wait for the Community to call for a 
Multilingual Internet rationale - they will know by then why they 
need to read it.  I know this is crazy, but tell me how to do keep a 
chance to ICANN otherwise; and therefore to short term network unity.

jfc



More information about the Idna-update mailing list