Comments on draft-ietf-idnabis-defs-10
John C Klensin
klensin at jck.com
Wed Sep 2 00:26:44 CEST 2009
--On Tuesday, September 01, 2009 16:54 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
<ajs at shinkuro.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 04:50:40PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
>> I've patched the changes into Protocol, making modifications
>> only where conversion from A-labels to U-labels is discussed.
>> I'm going to post that version for WG review as soon as I can
>> get it compiled and submitted. A version with the remaining
>> pre-IETF-last call patches (mainly the filling in of Section
>> numbers) will follow shortly (probably tomorrow) if either
>> there are no further comments or the comments indicate that
>> this is ok.
> This strategy is ok with me, but I want to state more clearly
> what I said before, and that is that once we have a complete
> document, in my opinion it would be very wise to have another
> short last call on the changed documents. It's too bad we
> should have finally twigged to the significance of Wil's June
> comment at WGLC, but that's what LCs are for. We shouldn't
> compound our error, however, by sending the document up
> without a second look.
While the formalities are up to Vint, that is, from my point of
view, exactly the reason for posting -15. If the Bidi issue (as
it effects Protocol) is resolved in a clear enough way for me to
know what text to change, I'm happy to post another interim
version for comment, but that change should be fairly isolated
if one is made at all.
You will be able to guess which set of versions I think are
ready for IETF Last Call when versions appear with the anchors
removed and the Section numbers in cross-references appear.
But, again, that will be just my opinion: I don't make that
judgment; Vint does.
More information about the Idna-update