Tables: BackwardCompatible Maintanence

[Erik van der Poel]

Hi Patrik,

Currently, the Tables draft is a bit asymmetric with respect to
BackwardCompatible and Context Registry:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-tables-04#section-5.1

For BackwardCompatible, it says "appointed expert" and for Context
Registry, it says "IETF Review". It would be nice if they both said
the same thing, and I would personally prefer IETF Review.

Erik

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:39 AM, Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se> wrote:
> I am still missing input from wg participants on this very large change.
>
> The problem for me is that I have problems saying exactly to IANA what
> they should do. I do, as I said last time in Minneapolis, that I am
> extremely nervous over changes like these. When is IANA to add things,
> and how? Do we really know IANA should add every difference to the
> backward compatibility list? I have seen enough discussions that say
> "some changes should be possible to make".
>
> Overall, there is a reason Unicode Consortium is making a very very
> rare change that create a non-backward compatible change for IDNA. I
> am personally very nervous telling IANA that the backward compatible
> list is absolute. I really want IETF process to have a look at that
> very rare change and decide what should be done. Either add to
> backward compatibility list, or do something else. Maybe change from
> PVALID to CONTEXT.
>
> But, as editor, the problem I have is that I see Mark's suggestion,
> and I hear my own personal argument against Marks suggestion. Then
> support from Ken saying he does not see any problem with Mark's
> suggestion.
>
> As Editor, I would like to get more input.
>
> And as individual, I once again say that the rules are very easy to
> relax later on, but not the other way around.
>
>    Patrik
>
> On 5 dec 2008, at 22.50, Mark Davis wrote:
>
>> Patrick asked about consensus for this item. I don't want it to fall
>> through
>> the cracks, so would anyone object to a change?
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 08:17, Mark Davis <mark at macchiato.com> wrote:
>>
>>> BackwardCompatible Maintanence Changes to BackwardCompatible are a
>>> completely different beast than adjustments to PVALID and
>>> DISALLOWED. The
>>> latter we can hope to never happen. But changes to BackwardCompatible
>>> MUST be done to preserve backwards compatibility, it is not an
>>> option! And
>>> we know that there is a non-zero likelyhood that this will happen
>>> with each
>>> Unicode version (every year or so). The BackwardCompatible list,
>>> like the
>>> Context Rules Registry, should be under the aegis of IANA, with
>>> precise and
>>> strict instructions to add exactly (all and only) those characters
>>> necessary
>>> to preserve backwards compatibility with each new version of
>>> Unicode. This
>>> is not a new concept: BCP 47 (RFC 4646) has a section describing
>>> exactly
>>> what to do with each new version of a source ISO standard. The
>>> textual
>>> changes to do this are small, and I can supply suggested text.
>>> *Minor*
>>>
>>> This document uses different reference names for the same
>>> documents, eg
>>> [TR15]. All of the IDNA2008 documents should use the same notation
>>> for
>>> common references.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>