Protocol-05

[Mark Davis]

I would be fine with moving the normative material out into a separate
document, if others are more comfortable with that.
Mark


On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:07 PM, John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com> wrote:

> Mark,
>
> I am not moving any definitional or equivalent text out of
> rationale until I see the results of consensus calls on the
> matter, if only because I don't want to be moving things back
> and forth.
>
> Difficulties for the editor have never been the issue here, at
> least as far as I'm concerned.  There are two concerns:
>
>        (i) The odds of making a mistake in the "moving" process
>        that would leave us with loose ends.
>
>        (ii) The observation that there is a valid and
>        significant audience for the material in Rationale whom
>        we will never persuade to read Protocol.  If the
>        definitions are not readily available to them without
>        reading Protocol, it is almost certain that they will
>        interpret the terminology in Rationale as meaning
>        whatever they think the words mean... and that will get
>        them, and the Internet, into trouble.
>
> A few people have suggested that a middle-ground solution to the
> latter problem would be to move the normative material from
> Rationale into a separate document, so that the implementer/
> technologist class of reader would look at
>   Definitions / Protocol/ Tables (and Bidi if it isn't folded
> into Protocol) plus Rationale if it is of interest.
>
> and the other classes of readers would look at
>   Definitions/ Rationale
>
> I hope that option is considered when the consensus calls are
> issued.
>
> I'll try to respond to your other suggestions late in the week.
>
>     john
>
> --On Monday, 29 September, 2008 15:53 +0200 Mark Davis
> <mark at macchiato.com> wrote:
>
> > I had a chance to review the documents again, and here are my
> > comments.
> >
> > 1. First, and most importantly, the normative definitions
> > really have to be moved out of the rationale document and into
> > the protocol document. One could argue that disentangling them
> > is difficult for the editor, but as it stands the documents
> > are simply too difficult to understand in terms of the
> > normative implications. And if it is difficult for the editor
> > to disentangle, it will be far, far, more difficult for users
> > of the specifications to disentangle.
> >
> > Concretely, I suggest that this would be done by moving the
> > following sections into the protocol document.
> >
> > 1.5.2 - 1.5.4
> > 4
> > 5, 5.1, 5.2
> > 9.1
> >
> > Most of the above moves into the terminology section in
> > protocol; 9.1 (describing differences from IDNA2003) could
> > come either near the start or at the end.
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20080930/23391ed9/attachment.htm