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