Last Call: draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol (Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA): Protocol) to Draft Standard

[Vint Cerf]

John,

thanks.

Lisa,

the immediate reactions seem to be completely in favor of Proposed.

Would you convey this to the IESG?

thanks

vint


On Oct 1, 2009, at 9:48 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> Vint,
>
> While the announcement doesn't specify (and may need formal
> clarification, but that is up to Lisa), the usual criteria for
> moving from Proposed-> Draft is that the documents be
> sufficiently similar that an implementation of the first can be
> considered an implementation of the new version so that
> implementation reports are meaningful (it is stated quite
> differently, but that is what it amounts to).  Due to changes
> whose implications we have debated endlessly, that is definitely
> not the case here -- a fully-conforming implementation of
> IDNA2003 is not a fully-conforming implementation of IDNA2008.
> So, as far as I know, Proposed is the only possibility here.
>
>   john
>
>
> --On Thursday, October 01, 2009 07:02 -0400 Vint Cerf
> <vint at google.com> wrote:
>
>> martin,
>>
>> that's a good question.
>>
>> Lisa,
>>
>> while the natural assumption may have been that IDNA2008 was a
>> direct   modification of IDNA2003, the basis for the design
>> seems sufficiently   different that it might merit only
>> proposed standard status. I didn't   catch this when the
>> announcement was sent.
>>
>> Does anyone object to asking for proposed rather than draft
>> status?
>>
>> vint
>>
>>
>> On Oct 1, 2009, at 4:51 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't the Last Call for Draft Standard, and one important
>>> criterion   for
>>> Draft Standard is implementations, so the implementation
>>> report is   relevant?
>>>
>>> Regards,   Martin.
>>>
>>> On 2009/10/01 5:11, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>>>> Sorry, that was part of the announcement boilerplate that's
>>>> not relevant to this Last Call -- I didn't notice it to
>>>> remove it.
>>>>
>>>> Lisa
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:50 AM, SM<sm at resistor.net>  wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>> At 07:12 29-09-2009, The IESG wrote:
>>>>>> The IESG has received a request from the Internationalized
>>>>>> Domain   Names
>>>>>> in Applications, Revised WG (idnabis) to consider the
>>>>>> following   document:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - 'Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA):
>>>>>> Protocol '
>>>>>>   <draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-16.txt>  as a Draft
>>>>>>   Standard
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Implementation Report can be accessed at
>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/implementation.html
>>>>> That's a 404.  Where can I find the implementation report?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> -sm
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Idna-update mailing list
>>>>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>>>>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Idna-update mailing list
>>>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>>>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> # -# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
>>> # -# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp
>>> # mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Idna-update mailing list
>>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
>
>
>