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

Erik van der Poel erikv at google.com
Sat Aug 23 03:06:10 CEST 2008


This is just my personal preference, but I would prefer to have all
normative material in protocol, table and bidi, preferably in an order
in which you can read each document from beginning to end with minimal
jumping ahead or jumping to other documents. The recommended reading
order would be protocol, table, bidi and rationale, where the only
"optional" document for an implementor would be the rationale. I would
prefer to avoid duplication of text.

Erik

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 5:54 PM, John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com> wrote:
>
>
> --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