Idna-update Digest, Vol 36, Issue 66

Sotiris Panaretou panaretou.sotiris at
Wed Dec 9 12:16:03 CET 2009

Dear Vint,

I did not have the time to reply but my vote is also for:

 (1) Both characters should be PVALID.

And not for (4).

Best Regards,

Sotiris Panaretou

-----Original Message-----
From: idna-update-bounces at
[mailto:idna-update-bounces at] On Behalf Of
idna-update-request at
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 1:00 PM
To: idna-update at
Subject: Idna-update Digest, Vol 36, Issue 66

Send Idna-update mailing list submissions to
	idna-update at

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	idna-update-request at

You can reach the person managing the list at
	idna-update-owner at

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Idna-update digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Sharp-S and Final Sigma Consensus Call Results (Vint Cerf)


Message: 1
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 04:08:43 -0500
From: Vint Cerf <vint at>
Subject: Sharp-S and Final Sigma Consensus Call Results
To: idna-update at
Message-ID: <A867CB69-CCDD-4562-8016-B9B9E23E536D at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Attached is a PDF of the spreadsheet I maintained during the past  
week's discussions. If you detect errors or omissions, kindly advise.

It is also important to note that the Unicode Technical Committee  
responded to a formal request for their opinion that Sharp-S and Final  
Sigma should be PVALID

On the basis of this information, I think we have rough consensus in  
the IDNABIS Working Group that Sharp-S and Final Sigma should be made  

The consensus call did not refer to the joiner/non-joiners and I  
continue to believe that the WG has long since concluded these should  
stay in CONTEXTJ

With regard to transition, there is considerable diversity among the  
WG as to preferences. In an absolute sense, the specification of a  
protocol (the set of proposed RFCs developed during IDNABIS WG effort)  
is independent of its introduction, so it might be argued that the WG  
does not need to specify an adoption or transition plan. As a  
practical matter, of course, something has to happen for the results  
to get into use.

Perhaps a small step forward would be for the editor of Rationale to  
make reference to the need for operators (I use this term in its most  
general sense to include registries, registrars, makers of software  
that rely on the DNS, etc) to assess their adoption plans in the  
context of an environment that includes a mix of IDNA2003 and IDNA2008  
"speakers" for a period of time likely to be measurable in years.

I will try to produce a possible transition synthesis drawn from  
various suggestions in the WG discussion on transition - however, that  
will take another couple of days as I am tied up with all-day meetings  
today and tomorrow.

This message, however, is intended to convey to the WG and the AD that  
the chair believes we have rough consensus on making Sharp-S and Final  
Sigma PVALID in IDNA2008.

Vint Cerf

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: consensus call sharp S final sigma.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 17774 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
-------------- next part --------------


Idna-update mailing list
Idna-update at

End of Idna-update Digest, Vol 36, Issue 66

More information about the Idna-update mailing list