Exception table (was: Re: 06FD and 06FE should be PVALID for Sindhi)

Andrew Sullivan ajs at commandprompt.com
Wed Apr 2 16:13:09 CEST 2008

Dear colleagues,

On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 03:53:54AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:

> It is perhaps also worth reminding ourselves that standing WGs to review 
> things have rarely worked well and that the odds of spinning up a full WG 
> to review a small handful of characters (or fewer) are very small (I offer 
> the length of time we spent of the charter for this effort as an example of 
> why).   

I think I'm probably confused.  While I have a great deal of sympathy
for the IANA registry option, the above consideration seems to me to
be a problem no matter whether we prefer issuing a new short document
for each revision or updating the relevant registry each time.  For
in either case, the problem is surely that a considerable amount of
consultation with a wide group of people will be needed to alter
the list of exceptions.

I am familiar with one case where the RFCs that were an output from a
working group were altered and moved along the standards track without
creating a new WG.  All the review happened on the WG's old mailing
list.  That seemed to work ok, but it was a pretty narrow community of
users (I'm thinking of EPP), so I don't know that it's a good
analogy.  Still, won't we need something like that whatever approach
we use for updating the exceptions list?

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at commandprompt.com
+1 503 667 4564 x104

More information about the Idna-update mailing list