my comments on draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-14 (second part)
vint at google.com
Wed Sep 2 01:19:02 CEST 2009
thanks for this.
can you be persuaded to go along with the -15 version that John is
releasing, even if it does not contain all the editorial
recommendations you have made? John's point about pace and delay are
relevant here (to me anyway) since we are now racing the clock to get
this into IESG queue and also to get final documents reported to RFC
editor for publication before ICANN has to move on with IDN TLD
On Sep 1, 2009, at 6:08 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Tuesday, September 01, 2009 15:30 +0900 "\"Martin J.
> Dürst\"" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
>> (second part of my comments)
>> Section 5:
>> para 2: " The two steps described in Section 5.2 are
>> required.": Superfluous. Make sure there's a MUST at the
>> right place in that section. (Looking at 5.2, I have no clue
>> what the two steps should be.
> Unless the WG disagrees, I recommend deferring the fairly
> significant rewrites you are proposing for a Draft Standard pass
> on these documents. Others seem to believe that they are ok as
> is. While I like most of the subset of your proposed changes
> that I've looked at carefully in conjunction with the document,
> I fear that making changes this extensive at this late date
> would cause significant risk of introducing errors or unexpected
> side effects, so it is difficult for me to recommend making them
> at this stage.
> Certainly such changes would require a second WG Last Call after
> new documents were produced and probably yet another set of
> documents after that before IETF Last Call.
> Again, if others disagree, I'll start rewriting, but I haven't
> seen any strong support for extensive editorial changes of this
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update