IANA actions and tables document

[Patrik Fältström]

On 11 dec 2008, at 02.52, Kenneth Whistler wrote:

> Adding something to the BackwardCompatibility list is *not*
> something that needs explicit debate and review. In order
> to preserve stability for IDNs, *if* it ever happens
> (and we do hope it is an extremely rare case) that for a
> new version of Unicode, the derivation in Section 3 ends
> up turning a formerly PVALID character to DISALLOWED, then
> you just automatically add it to the BackwardCompatibility
> list to *force* it to stay PVALID, thereby keeping all your
> implementations backward compatible, even during any
> transition period when some might be upgrading and others not.

Now I am more confused.

This would imply that IFF Unicode include a from IDNA perspective  
incompatible change, then we first get an automatic addition to  
BackwardCompatibility, and then if IETF want to override this and  
follow UTC, then IETF add the codepoint to Exceptions.

My proposal is still to require IETF action to changes to the  
BackwardCompatibility list UNTIL we have added the first codepoint to  
that list. The RFC that do that addition could be very very short, and  
just update that entry. It is not a new version of the tables document  
that is needed. IETF action implies the addition of the codepoint will  
be flagged on for example the IETF Announce mailing list.

    Patrik