Consensus Call Tranche 8 (Character Adjustments)

[John C Klensin]

Marcos,

Thanks for the offer.  Text eagerly awaited -- I've got some
notes, but I'm sure what you have will be complementary and
better.

More generally, those two characters have been extensively
discussed, both on and off-list.  In the case of Eszett (8.a)
the German orthographic situation is clear and the top-level
registries who are likely to be most affected understand the
transition issues (either way) and are willing to deal with
them.  In the Sigma case, the current registry preference is to
preserve the IDNA2003 mapping as part of the protocol (see
forthcoming note).  

Even in the Hangul case, to the extent to which there has not
been discussion, it is certainly not because the language
community has not tried.  We've had several attempts at
explanations of the issue and requests for the particular
resolution of 8.c.  We can't, IMO, very well take the position
that we have ignored and declined to educate ourselves about and
discuss their proposal and that it should therefore be rejected
because there was no discussion.  There may be reasons, on
balance, for rejecting it, but "the WG couldn't get its act
together to hold a real discussion" can't be it.

    john


--On Wednesday, 15 October, 2008 07:07 +0200 "Marcos Sanz/Denic"
<sanz at denic.de> wrote:

>> > (8.a) Make Eszett Protocol-Valid per list discussion.
>> > 
>> > (8.b) Make Greek final sigma Protocol-Valid per list
>> > discussion.
>> 
>> These should only be made PVALID *if* sufficient information
>> is added to the protocol document about the particular
>> transition and security issues involved in making them
>> so.
> 
> FWIW I volunteer for providing text to the protocol doc with
> respect to  8.a
> 
> Best,
> Marcos
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update