consensus item - "IDNA2008"

Harald Alvestrand harald at alvestrand.no
Mon Dec 22 11:54:22 CET 2008


I support John's suggestion.
And that will be my last note on the naming debate. I think it adds zero 
benefit.

Merry holidays.

John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Sunday, 21 December, 2008 09:36 -0500 Vint Cerf
> <vint at google.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Although we may not finalize all consensus items until early
>> in 2009, I would like to ask for consensus to stick with the
>> "IDNA2008" nomenclature for two reasons:
>>
>> 1. the bulk of the work has been done in that year
>> 2. the term clearly distinguishes IDNA2008 from IDNA2003
>>
>> I recognize that suggestions have been made to rename the work
>> "IDNA" or "IDNA2009" but it seems to me that we have a body of
>> material (draft I-Ds and list commentary) that references
>> "IDNA2008" and that it serves clarity to retain the binding.
>>
>> May I assume concurrence?
>>     
>
> Vint,
>
> Yes.
>
> But let me suggest a small distinction, one that is consistent
> with how the documents are written (and have been written since
> the WG's inception).
>
> Name of Protocol: IDNA
> Name of/ Reference to this particular version: IDNA2008
>
> That means that we don't have sentences contrasting "IDNA" with
> "IDNA2003" (which would be extremely confusing), arguments down
> the line as to whether these are actually two difference and
> co-existent or competitive protocols (they clearly are not), etc.
>
>     john
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
>   



More information about the Idna-update mailing list