Tables: BackwardCompatible Maintanence

[Patrik Fältström]

On 9 dec 2008, at 15.36, Erik van der Poel wrote:

> 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.

Fixed.

    paf

>
>
> 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
>>
>