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

Paul Hoffman phoffman at imc.org
Wed Apr 2 17:34:36 CEST 2008

At 3:53 AM -0400 4/2/08, John C Klensin wrote:
>The principle, as I see it, is that
>    At least until we are able to figure out what the rules
>    should be for making exceptions (I don't expect that will
>    happen in any deterministic way, ever, but hope I'm wrong),
>    modifying the exceptions table should require a full
>    standards-track process.

Fully agree. The two characters that has brought this topic to our 
attention are excellent examples of the need for a standards-track 
process. We already have statements going in many different 
directions from various experts.

The exceptions table is needed and it is tricky (PVALID vs. CONTEXT* 
as just one example). It needs to be changed carefully.

>    The other is to do this by an IANA registry for which the
>    conditions for modification required a process essentially
>    equivalent to the above, even if getting that process
>    requires an exception to, or updating of, the usual set of
>    template IANA instructions.

This seems to have a higher likelihood of being most beneficial to 
developers. The IANA registry should include a column for which RFC 
added or changed each value in the table.

More information about the Idna-update mailing list