Progress of 5/6 IDNABIS documents & mappings consistency issue

[Patrick Suger]

2009/12/21 Paul Hoffman <phoffman at imc.org>

> This may be a mischaracterization of the WG's intentions for the mappings
> document; or, it may be exactly right. Given that the document was created
> after the WG had already made many, many decisions on direction, it is
> really hard to say what the mappings document is supposed to be. My feeling
> (as co-author, but definitely not as WG chair or responsible AD) is that the
> main thing the WG wants the mappings document to say is "you can do mappings
> however you want". It feels like the WG also wants a simple example of a
> mapping scheme, but nothing definitive.
>

+ 7

Dear Mr. Hoffman,

this is a vacations period, and most of the WG/IDNABIS' "Jefsey disciples"
have moved to SIC/IDNA2010 to work on running codes that are based on the
Mapping document consensus you describe, after we completed the position
statement sent by our Chair yesterday. So, it will be deployed anyway.

There is an IDNA2008 protocol, it is decribed by the document set. Period.
This is finished, and forwarded by the AD to the IESG.

There is a IDNA2008 environment that is common with all the BCP (the ways to
use the network) that is specified by the Mapping document.

There is an Internet IDNA2008 architecture which is not described as such by
the Charter but one cannot evade if one respects the Charter. Some,
including the AD may want to change that architecture. My young
understanding of the IETF is that WGs are not to change their Charters. If
the AD wanted us to question it, she had to ask before. Now, she is free to
ask to the Charter's author.

May I add that I feel hurting that our Director after a two years long work
of voluntaries, repeated statements of our Chair, selects the most worked
out topic to ask us to say we changed our mind, after we found that it was
not possible under our charter - we are pleased with. This is like asking
Ireland to vote again because they first said "no".The Mapping document is
the core of the IDNA2008 consensus. So, it makes no sense to accept one and
question the other. Unless the target is to make us procratisnate three
months more and someone else decides?

I am sorry to be upset, but I am realy glad that Lisa already said TATWEEL
was out the picture.
Sincerly,

P. Suger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20091221/24897bd2/attachment.htm