idnabis WG documents

Paul Hoffman phoffman at
Fri Apr 18 00:03:35 CEST 2008

At 5:50 PM -0400 4/17/08, John C Klensin wrote:
>-Despite your "will not be an RFC" comment above, I was
>tentatively planning to fold your list into the introduction to
>the Rationale document since it is a start on an
>executive-summary-level overview of what is different.

Sounds fine.

>    Unless
>you, or others, object, that will be in the first WG version of
>that document, which I'm going to try to have out sometime next

I kinda object to this because the WG hasn't had a chance to discuss 
what kind of documents we want. It is definitely premature to assume 
that we want the same four as the inputs, in the same format as the 
inputs. I have other proposals for the format, but thought that our 
first order of business was to determine WG consensus on what it is 
we are doing, with the document format coming after that.

How about you just wind this list (with any changes that come from 
the WG) into the next version of your document, and we decide what 
the structure and content that the WG wants in a few weeks?

More information about the Idna-update mailing list