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

[John C Klensin]

This note covers comments and changes that may not be obvious
from the record in the Change Logs in the various documents and
does not cover the suggestion about Bidi...

--On Sunday, October 11, 2009 14:24 -0700 SM <sm at resistor.net>
wrote:

> At 09:27 01-10-2009, 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 Proposed
>>    Standard
> 
> It is easier for me to comment on all six documents in one
> message as  they should be read as a collection.  The order in
> which the  documents can be read is also relevant if a person
> is not familiar  with the IDNABIS work.  The political
> overtones throughout the  discussions about some of the
> technical issues have not been missed.  :-)  I note that a
> document published in 1954 was used as a reference  in an
> argument about usage of some characters for a particular 
> language.  The people speaking it as their native language do
> not  know about the characters and would not recognize them as
> valid  characters if they see them on printed material.

I have not been able to find the 1954 document reference to
which you refer.

>...
 
> draft-ietf-idnabis-defs-11 obsoletes RFC 
> 3490.  draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-16 obsoletes RFC 3490 and 
> 3491.  That looks like a mistake.

If it is, it was intentional.  Defs does replace some
definitional material in 3490.  Protocol replaces the protocol
definition that appears there and the protocol material in
Nameprep that it references.   For better or worse, there is no
mechanism for identifying which specific material is being
replaced by "obsoletes".  However, if and when these documents
are published, the RFC Index entry for 3490 should indicate that
it is obsoleted by Defs and Protocol (and Bidi and perhaps part
of Mappings*) while the one for 3491 should indicate that it is
obsoleted by Protocol  (since Defs does not affect it), plus
Tables and possibly Mappings*.  The current structure will have
that effect, although we will all have to watch to be sure that
is gotten right when the time comes.

 * Mappings does not now indicate that it obsoletes or
	updates anything.  I really don't know if that is
	correct or not, but am personally happy with the
	situation in which Defs, Protocol, and Tables obsolete
	3490 and 3491 and Defs points to Mapping for
	supplemental and non-normative information.

>...

   john