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

Andrew Sullivan ajs at commandprompt.com
Wed Apr 2 20:46:39 CEST 2008

On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 11:59:41AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:

> Watch out, you could turn into an optimist :-(

I think the danger of me turning in to an optimist is perhaps slightly
ahead of Eeyore, but maybe nobody else :-)  But I see what you mean.

> One of the advantages of an extraordinary review process is that it stays 
> extraordinary.  One could write rules like "one must get input from UTC" 
> and "one must find relevant registries and get input from them" and expect 
> that they will be followed.  

This sort of approach is certainly ok with me, provided we really
think that input from UTL and relevant registries will happen.  On the
other hand, following my earlier logic, I guess it makes little
difference which method we pick if we are pessimistic about the
likelihood for comprehensive review, because we think it won't happen
anyway.  In that case, a registry still has the benefit that there is
one place for people to look (non-IETF people often complain about how
hard it is to track sets of changes through the RFCs).  Therefore, I'm
in favour of the registry approach, provided it comes with
extraordinary review procedures as suggested.


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

More information about the Idna-update mailing list