idnabis WG documents

Paul Hoffman phoffman at
Fri Apr 18 23:18:48 CEST 2008

At 7:07 PM -0400 4/17/08, John C Klensin wrote:
>Paul, I clearly don't have any problems with the WG deciding on
>document structure.

That's good to hear. One thing that came out of the discussions in 
Philadelphia is that many people are wary of the current "issues" 
document. I am probably the most vocal about that, of course, but I 
heard from multiple people that they don't like a document with a 
such a negative tone about IDNA2003.

Separately, one of the lessons we learned with IDNA2003 is that the 
more "helpful" text you put in the protocol document, the more likely 
it is that implementers will get it wrong. The rationale and "issues" 
sections of the design team documents may have been helpful in 
getting us to where we are today, but have no value to an implementer 
who needs to know exactly what their implementation needs to do.

Hopefully, the labelling of the next revisions of the design team 
documents as WG documents doesn't cause WG members to think that we 
are stuck with a four-document regimen that contains a large dollop 
of criticism-tinged explanation.

More information about the Idna-update mailing list