Mapping (was: Issues lists and the "preprocessing" topic)

John C Klensin klensin at jck.com
Sat Aug 23 02:54:41 CEST 2008



--On Friday, 22 August, 2008 20:48 -0400 Vint Cerf
<vint at google.com> wrote:

> Perhaps an alternative tactic is possible. If there is
> normative information in rationale, let's put it into the
> appropriate other document (protocol, bidi, tables) and KEEP
> it in the rationale document. Let's say up front that
> rationale is NOT normative but intended to help understanding
> of the normative documents.

That is more or less what I intended by the "duplicate text in
both documents" comment.   The problem I see with it at this
stage is that it will be very hard to keep the duplicate copies
consistent if we change one or the other.  And that is precisely
the reason I proposed a "get things finished and right with this
set of documents, get them published at Proposed, and _then_
rearrange things, duplicating then-stable text as needed.

The most difficult normative material that is now in Rationale
is the set of definitions and that material is definitely not
stable (or at least it is still controversial).

If the WG wants to try the "duplicate now" plan, I'm willing to
try to do so, but it will require _very_ careful review to
ensure that things stay consistent as we make other changes.

    john



More information about the Idna-update mailing list