Gentlemen,<br>As far as I am concerned, and from what I have read so far, I plan to work this WE on the following assumptions:<br><br>1. Charter says:<br><br>"The WG will stop work and recommend that a new charter be generated if it concludes that any of the following are necessary to meet its goals:<br>
<br>-- (i) A change to the "punycode" algorithm or to the ACE approach to encoding names in the DNS.<br><br>This is not the case.<br><br>-- (ii) A change to the ACE prefix from "xn--"<br><br>This is not the case. However ASCII case sensitive support may require an additional prefix.<br>
<br> (iii) A change to the basic approach taken in the design team documents (Namely:<br><br>-- independence from Unicode version <br><br>This is not the case.<br><br>-- and elimination of character mapping in the protocol.<br>
<br>This is the pending point. Should mapping be carried:<br><br>(a) on an end to end protocol level - rationale? new charter being proposed?<br>(b) on an app to app application level - guidance to application developper to be provided through separate document + advised tables ?<br>
(c) a mix of both - rationale? new charter being proposed?<br><br><br>2. Charter also says: "If the public review provided by this Working Group confirms the basic method outlined in the input documents, it is expected that the working group will be able to respond with any needed changes and close in a short period of time." <br>
<br>-> this has not turned true so far (this WG is 6 months late). Question is therefore why, since charter says "If technical issues arise that indicate a fundamentally different approach must be taken from the one outlined above, it is anticipated that this working group would close, and a new one with an appropriate charter would be considered.".<br>
<br>-> I understand that the only technical issue which is not addressed so far is case sensitiveness in the ASCII area. I do not see any problem is the current Charter is respected and this is addressed at app2app level. <br>
<br><br>3. The charter says : "This work is intended to specify an improved means to produce and use stable and unambiguous IDN identifiers." This is a point I wish to study further, because I do not know what "IDN identifiers" are. Also, I have a difficulty in associating stable and unambigous identification with domain names which are typically renewed or transfered to new users on a yearly basis. <br>
<br>Comments, references, help on this point would be appreciated. My intend is to co-prepare a Draft on the issue.<br><br>Elisabeth Blanconil<br>A-FRA<br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/4/24 Vint Cerf <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vint@google.com" target="_blank">vint@google.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I am in brussels tomorrow and spain on the weekend but am doing the same thing you are (getting resynchronized after all the distractions). stand by.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>v</font><div><div></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Paul Hoffman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:phoffman@imc.org" target="_blank">phoffman@imc.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">We have gotten sidetracked, and I have lost state. Which reasonably-specific proposals are on the table for WG work on mapping?</blockquote>
</div></div></div></blockquote></div><br>