Issues lists and the "preprocessing" topic

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

It resolves for me Patrik, however, as you may remember from 2002, the 
question of mappings was something I thought was in-scope for the IETF, 
and when the "hum" went the other way, I proposed it (more generally) to 
the then-current IRTF chair.

I still think responsibility for mapping, in the most general sense, for 
code-points that may properly form dns text labels, is best held by a 
dns working group, and failing that, an IETF working group, so I'm 
pleased to see your response to Mark. I wasn't going to comment, for the 
obvious reasons.

Eric

Patrik Fältström wrote:
> On 21 aug 2008, at 01.59, Mark Davis wrote:
>
>   
>> Based on comments from John and others at the meeting, however, it  
>> appears
>> that the working group is fundamentally not interested in having a  
>> common
>> specification for a mapping phase be part of the IDNAbis, and that  
>> it would
>> be better done by organizations like Unicode or others. Based on  
>> that, I
>> modified the draft at http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfqr8rd5_51c3nrskcx 
>> , and
>> submitted it to the UTC for consideration.
>>     
>
>
> A few things:
>
> I have not seen this consensus you refer to. The contrary. I see  
> support for such a document.
>
> I personally support such a document in the IETF, and have told you  
> and everyone I have been asked.
>
> The URI you have above does not resolve. I get back a 404.
>
> Regarding earlier versions of this document, I think it is a fine  
> start, but too bound to "web based applications". I.e. ok as such, but  
> if applicable to more protocols than web/http, it could be more  
> generic. But see comments on in what order the wg have cycles for  
> working on multiple documents and multiple threads.
>
>     Patrik
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
>
>