<div dir="ltr">I would be fine with moving the normative material out into a separate document, if others are more comfortable with that.<div><br clear="all">Mark<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:07 PM, John C Klensin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:klensin@jck.com">klensin@jck.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Mark,<br>
<br>
I am not moving any definitional or equivalent text out of<br>
rationale until I see the results of consensus calls on the<br>
matter, if only because I don't want to be moving things back<br>
and forth.<br>
<br>
Difficulties for the editor have never been the issue here, at<br>
least as far as I'm concerned. There are two concerns:<br>
<br>
(i) The odds of making a mistake in the "moving" process<br>
that would leave us with loose ends.<br>
<br>
(ii) The observation that there is a valid and<br>
significant audience for the material in Rationale whom<br>
we will never persuade to read Protocol. If the<br>
definitions are not readily available to them without<br>
reading Protocol, it is almost certain that they will<br>
interpret the terminology in Rationale as meaning<br>
whatever they think the words mean... and that will get<br>
them, and the Internet, into trouble.<br>
<br>
A few people have suggested that a middle-ground solution to the<br>
latter problem would be to move the normative material from<br>
Rationale into a separate document, so that the implementer/<br>
technologist class of reader would look at<br>
Definitions / Protocol/ Tables (and Bidi if it isn't folded<br>
into Protocol) plus Rationale if it is of interest.<br>
<br>
and the other classes of readers would look at<br>
Definitions/ Rationale<br>
<br>
I hope that option is considered when the consensus calls are<br>
issued.<br>
<br>
I'll try to respond to your other suggestions late in the week.<br>
<br>
john<br>
<br>
--On Monday, 29 September, 2008 15:53 +0200 Mark Davis<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><<a href="mailto:mark@macchiato.com">mark@macchiato.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> I had a chance to review the documents again, and here are my<br>
> comments.<br>
><br>
> 1. First, and most importantly, the normative definitions<br>
> really have to be moved out of the rationale document and into<br>
> the protocol document. One could argue that disentangling them<br>
> is difficult for the editor, but as it stands the documents<br>
> are simply too difficult to understand in terms of the<br>
> normative implications. And if it is difficult for the editor<br>
> to disentangle, it will be far, far, more difficult for users<br>
> of the specifications to disentangle.<br>
><br>
> Concretely, I suggest that this would be done by moving the<br>
> following sections into the protocol document.<br>
><br>
> 1.5.2 - 1.5.4<br>
> 4<br>
> 5, 5.1, 5.2<br>
> 9.1<br>
><br>
> Most of the above moves into the terminology section in<br>
> protocol; 9.1 (describing differences from IDNA2003) could<br>
> come either near the start or at the end.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>