Another Transition Plan Proposal

John C Klensin klensin at
Sat Dec 12 01:45:29 CET 2009

--On Friday, December 11, 2009 15:04 -0800 Gervase Markham
<gerv at> wrote:

> On 11/12/09 01:13, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>> This BCP would essentially say:
>> Clients, with respect to the 4 characters in question:
>> - MUST not move to IDNA 2008 before date X.
>> - SHOULD move to IDNA 2008 after date X as fast as possible.
> That sounds excellent. If my automated proposal isn't possible
> due to  particular design features of the DNS, then something
> like this will  have to do. It's a shame because it's more
> hassle for the registries,  but I guess they are the ones who
> have a particular interest in getting  these characters
> working, so perhaps they will consider the work to be  worth
> it.

Procedural question, just out of curiosity and independent of
other issues.   A BCP like the one you describe would require
either a significant charter revision (to add the task) or a new
WG.  Based on prior experience and allowing for the time of
year, either one would probably take at least a month or two to
get circulated and approved (even if it was fairly
non-controversial) and, while we might get lucky, there would
likely be at least some "finish the existing tasks before
starting new ones" push-back.   Would people like/intend to
block the existing documents until such a BCP can be developed
and consensus received on it?  Or is it possible to get the
current documents out and then start work on the BCP?

Lisa, any opinions about this?


More information about the Idna-update mailing list