Consensus Call Tranche 8 Summary - Addendum

[John C Klensin]

Much better.  Thanks.
   john


--On Wednesday, 22 October, 2008 12:52 -0700 Kenneth Whistler
<kenw at sybase.com> wrote:

> John said:
> 
>> Thanks.  I will save this text in case there is agreement that
>> it should be used.  I believe that the first questions are the
>> ones that Andrew stated implicitly: whether we believe
>> Rationale should evolve in this direction and, then, whether
>> this type of comment and pointer is the optimal (or only) one
>> to make.
>> 
>> I also wonder whether the definition of a "technical
>> character" is well understood within the community that might
>> be reading that document.
> 
> See suggested clarification below.
> 
> --Ken
> 
>> 
>>    best,
>>    john
>> 
>> 
>> --On Wednesday, 22 October, 2008 17:36 +0200 Mark Davis
>> <mark at macchiato.com> wrote:
> 
>> > [In 4.4. Registry Restrictions, after the first paragraph,
>> > add:]
>> > 
>> > Note: In constructing registry policies that disallow 
>> > historic or technical characters
> 
> --> characters used in historic writing systems or characters
>     whose use is restricted to specialized, highly technical
>     contexts,
>      
>> > to reduce opportunities for confusion,
>> > some relevant information may be found at
>> > [Unicode-Exclusions] and [Unicode-Security].
> 
> It could be restrung to read better, but that is a more
> self-explanatory phrasing for the characters Mark has
> in mind.
> 
> --Ken
>