idnabis WG documents

John C Klensin klensin at
Fri Apr 18 01:07:30 CEST 2008

--On Thursday, 17 April, 2008 15:03 -0700 Paul Hoffman
<phoffman at> wrote:

> 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 week.
> 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?

Paul, I clearly don't have any problems with the WG deciding on
document structure.  I'm even happy to issue one last version of
"rationale" as draft-klensin-idnabis-issues if that would make
you (or others) more comfortable.   But, from my point of view,
fwiw, we have lost considerable time and momentum in the charter
discussion process. I'd really like to avoid, if possible,
losing even more in weeks of further navel-gazing over document
organization and structure.  I'm not trying to pre-empt
anything, but I'd like to urge that we spend as much time as is
really needed getting structural arrangements like document
organization and naming straightened out as is really needed,
but no longer.

In the interim, I think it is useful to record substantive
conclusions (as distinct from procedural ones) that appear to
have been reached during the charter discussion process in an
I-D, however tentatively that is done, before we completely
forget what was discussed. Do you disagree?


More information about the Idna-update mailing list