Consensus Call Tranche 3 (Permanence)

[Simon Josefsson]

Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> writes:

> Consensus Call Tranche 3 (Permanence)
>
> Place your reply here: [YES or NO]

NO.

> COMMENTS:

I believe the permanence requirement should be stronger.  In other
words, I prefer to remove "unless serious and unanticipated
circumstances occur.".  With that change, the proposed text is fine with
me.

Note that it will _always_ be possible to re-classify characters by
publishing a new IDNA standard that says "whatever IDNA2008 says, but
treat code point X as Y because Z".  This approach is more clear for
implementers, as it is simpler to explain conformance.

It also sends a strong message to the UTC that if they break the
normalization operation, they will break IDNA 2008.  PERIOD.  We should
not allow them to weasel out of a backwards incompatible normalization
change with reasons such as "well, this can be considered a
unanticipated circumstance, so you should simply change your
implementation because it is buggy" which they have done before.

/Simon

> (3) Permanence of DISALLOWED and PROTOCOL-VALID
>
> (3.a) Once a character is classified as PROTOCOL-VALID, it
> will remain in that category for all future versions of the
> protocol and tables unless serious and unanticipated
> circumstances occur.  (R.10)
>
> (3.b) Once a character is classified as DISALLOWED, it will
> remain in that category for all future versions of the protocol
> and tables unless serious and unanticipated circumstances
> occur.  Note that UNASSIGNED characters are not, for this
> purpose, DISALLOWED.  (R.5)
> ------------
>
>
> 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