Proposed document structure and content for IDNA

James Seng james at
Fri Jul 11 04:58:09 CEST 2008

+1 to single doc and +1 to a separate information doc. priority shld
be the former.


On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:24 AM, Paul Hoffman <phoffman at> wrote:
> At 12:09 PM -0600 7/10/08, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>Will the commentary/history/rationale go into an informational
>>document of some kind, or will that back story be lost in the
> My preference would be the latter. The "back story" is quite
> different depending on who you talk to. The folks who did the heavy
> lifting to write the first drafts have different rationale and
> history from those who are doing the current reviews.
> One example that was brought out at the Philly meeting by a few
> people is the wide disagreement about how much IDNA2008 was "needed".
> There are similar disagreements for almost every revision to major
> IETF protocols. (I'm still living with the aftermath of IKEv2, for
> example.) I'm quite skeptical that we could get WG consensus on much
> of the rationale, or even the commentary.
> The WG mailing list archives will, of course, live forever. That
> should be sufficient for any implementer who really needed to
> understand why the WG agreed to some particular part of the spec.
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at

More information about the Idna-update mailing list