Version -02 of the topics draft

Paul Hoffman phoffman at
Mon Apr 21 01:52:59 CEST 2008

At 4:44 PM -0400 4/20/08, John C Klensin wrote:
>* To accurately reflect the assumptions behind the new proposal, 
>item 2.3, which now reads "Disallow most symbol characters" should 
>really read "Disallow all symbol and punctuation characters except 
>where special exceptions are necessary" or something to that effect.

Agree, minus the "all".

>* I'm not sure I understand how 2.8 is different from 2.9.   Was 
>this an editing error in which the parenthetical remark in 2.8 was 
>inserted but 2.9 not removed?

No. this is intentional. This is lifted pretty much directly from the 
bidi draft. (8) is about domain names in places where you would 
expect them, (9) is about domain names in free text such as 

>* While I have no problem with your Section 3, I wonder whether we 
>get onto a slippery slope that leads to ratholes vis-a-vis the 
>charter by opening a discussion of any IDN-related issue that anyone 
>participating in the WG wants to discuss.   I'm not personally 
>opposed to discussing either of the issues that you list, but wonder 
>if we can devise a way of filtering additional issues that does not 
>bog us down in reviewing each of the proposals that was introduced 
>into the original WG.

That's for the WG chair, not this draft. So far, we have had very few 
(as in, two) suggestions that would go here. I would rather discuss 
them at the beginning (like, now) and then close the discussion of 

>* In Section 4, the statement is made as if it were a WG conclusion. 
>I don't believe that we have reached any consensus on that subject, 
>which is intimately related to the document reorganization issues 
>that you have wanted the WG to address, so it should be listed as a 
>topic for discussion.

Fully disagree. Each RFC that this WG produces will have a Security 
Considerations section, even if it is a stub pointing to another one. 
Those are the rules for RFCs; we don't get to punt here.

>Incidentally, "eventual" is misspelled in that sentence.

Whoops, thanks.

More information about the Idna-update mailing list