There is a lot in 4690 that I find problematic, so I don't mind deleting it. The rationale document is already a much better statement of the issues, and the main problem is listed in the charter explicitly<br><ul><li>
the tie to a specific (old) version of Unicode.</li><li>problems with bidi.</li><li>problems with effective use of some scripts.<br></li></ul>Mark<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:35 PM, John C Klensin <<a href="mailto:klensin@jck.com">klensin@jck.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
--On Monday, 17 March, 2008 13:13 -0700 Paul Hoffman<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><<a href="mailto:phoffman@imc.org">phoffman@imc.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Lisa said:<br>
><br>
>> Here are the TODOs on the charter from the meeting:<br>
>> - Consensus to remove reference to 4690 from charter<br>
><br>
> I agree with this move. RFC 4690 did many things at once, and<br>
> it is not clear that we intend to do every one of those things<br>
> in this WG.<br>
<br>
</div>I have no objection to removing the 4690 reference from the<br>
charter. However, no charter draft that I have seen says "solve<br>
all of the problems and address all of the issues that 4690<br>
identified" and I'm a little concerned about this level of<br>
micro-tuning of the charter (whether by removing things or<br>
specifying additional ones).<br>
<br>
Especially because IDNA is a client-side protocol in which it is<br>
difficult to test for conformance on the wire, it is, IMO,<br>
important that the output of this effort identify _why_ things<br>
are being done and, in essence, why people should conform to the<br>
standard. To the extent to which 4690 provides that rationale<br>
for some of the provisions, it is probably better to have<br>
informative references to it than to need to replicate all of<br>
the text. I hope that remains an acceptable option and that we<br>
can avoid a model in which people are expected to do things just<br>
because the IETF says so. The latter has not worked well with<br>
IDNA2003; I see no reason to believe it will work any better<br>
going forward.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
john<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Idna-update mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Idna-update@alvestrand.no">Idna-update@alvestrand.no</a><br>
<a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Mark