Security Considerations: bad split

[Paul Hoffman]

At 9:03 AM +0100 12/7/08, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>Having re-read the security considerations on -bidi, I fail to see how
>it's possible to comprehend these few paragraphs without just having
>read -bidi.

Are you saying that someone who is implementing IDNA200x will not have read -bidi? I thought -bidi was required for the protocol.

>I also fail to see how these few paragraphs will enhance people's
>understanding of any of the other documents.

The first sentence is a pretty huge security consideration for IDNA200x.

>In the case of -bidi, I see the drive for an unified security
>considerations section as quixotic, harmful and nonsensical.

I can agree with the first and third, given that the document authors have bigger heels dug more firmly in the ground, but I do not see how a combined security considerations section could be "harmful".