Consensus Call Tranche 8 Summary - Addendum

[Marcos Sanz/Denic]

Fully agreement with the inclusion of this text in the protocol document, 
section 4.4.

Nitpicking: I think it would be better to change the reference mnemonic 
from "[Unicode-Exclusions]" to "[Unicode-Identifier]".

Best regards,
Marcos

idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no schrieb am 23.10.2008 08:44:01:

> Yes, I agree. Thanks, Ken.
> 
> Mark
> 

> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:28 PM, John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com> 
wrote:
> 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