Brief Plans for IDNAbis WG meeting at SF IETF

[Vint Cerf]

Erik,

I have a substantial amount of material already in hand from the many  
exchanges that have already appeared. I hope to send a draft out this  
weekend for consideration and remarks. I will take whatever transpires  
during the rest of next week to try to prepare a revision for the  
meeting itself.

v


Vint Cerf
Google
1818 Library Street, Suite 400
Reston, VA 20190
202-370-5637
vint at google.com




On Mar 14, 2009, at 5:10 PM, Erik van der Poel wrote:

> Would you please state the deadline for such emails from mailing list
> participants? Presumably, you'd like to leave enough time for you to
> summarize, and then enough time for meeting attendees to read the
> summaries.
>
> Erik
>
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
>> yes, I should have said that I will try to produce such summaries  
>> ahead of
>> time for consideration by the WG.
>>
>> v
>>
>>
>> Vint Cerf
>> Google
>> 1818 Library Street, Suite 400
>> Reston, VA 20190
>> 202-370-5637
>> vint at google.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 14, 2009, at 3:47 PM, Erik van der Poel wrote:
>>
>>> Vint,
>>>
>>> Given the nature of the IETF meeting format (lining up at the
>>> microphone) and the possibility that we might end up spending a  
>>> lot of
>>> time on Agenda Item 1 below, may I suggest that since many of us
>>> already know of basic implications for backward compatibility,  
>>> that we
>>> reiterate those with short explanations between now and the meeting,
>>> and that you (possibly with the help of an assistant) collect and
>>> summarize those statements before the meeting?
>>>
>>> Similarly, the implications of Paul's approach can also be suggested
>>> by mailing list participants, and those can also be collected and
>>> summarized.
>>>
>>> Of course, the intention would be to have meeting attendees read  
>>> those
>>> summaries before attending, so that we can avoid spending too much
>>> time on mere statements and explanations of the summarized items.
>>>
>>> I believe your next two steps (after Agenda Items 1 and 2), i.e.
>>> whether or not to publish IDNA2008 and whether or not IDNA2008 and
>>> IDNAv2 can somehow be combined, are much more interesting and  
>>> useful.
>>> There may be a way to "generate" tables similar to IDNA2003's from
>>> future versions of Unicode, without adding a new prefix each time. I
>>> may have more to say on this later.
>>>
>>> Erik
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We will meet on Monday and Tuesday, March 23/24.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to suggest that we attempt to come to some closure the
>>>> work in the following way:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Assuming the charter as it is stated, we try to agree on what  
>>>> the
>>>> system (IDNA2008) looks like. In particular, assuming that  
>>>> mapping is
>>>> NOT part of the protocol. I would want also to try to agree on the
>>>> basic implications for backward (in)compatibility with the existing
>>>> IDNA2003 behavior. This effort is not necessarily a decision-making
>>>> one but rather an attempt to agree on the implications of a  
>>>> charter-
>>>> consistent design. I would emphasize here that an important  
>>>> component
>>>> of the charter was to try to accommodate changes to UNICODE by
>>>> algorithmic means (tables, bidi rules, etc) and not have to convene
>>>> IETF WGs to agree on any implied changes to the tables
>>>>
>>>> 2. Consider the proposal by Paul Hoffman to implement an  
>>>> extension of
>>>> IDNA2003 by direct additions or changes to tables of valid  
>>>> characters
>>>> or mappings of characters. Again we would want to try to agree on  
>>>> the
>>>> implications of this approach.
>>>>
>>>> If we can get this far, I would suggest two further steps. Within  
>>>> the
>>>> current charter, I would seek to publish the IDNA2008 as the  
>>>> product
>>>> of the WG. However, I would also raise the basic question, which of
>>>> the two approaches appears to be most beneficial in terms of
>>>> implementation in the short term and maintenance in the longer  
>>>> term. I
>>>> would guess that there are different views on these points and  
>>>> perhaps
>>>> other or better metrics by which to judge the alternatives. There  
>>>> may
>>>> be intermediate alternatives that somehow combine the rule-based
>>>> IDNA2008 approach with mapping or other tactics that increase the
>>>> backward compatibility of the proposed and current practices.
>>>>
>>>> Your thoughts on this approach would be appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vint Cerf
>>>> Google
>>>> 1818 Library Street, Suite 400
>>>> Reston, VA 20190
>>>> 202-370-5637
>>>> vint at google.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Idna-update mailing list
>>>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>>>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>>>>
>>
>>