3492bis

John C Klensin klensin at jck.com
Thu Jun 19 15:28:05 CEST 2008



--On Wednesday, 18 June, 2008 18:43 -0700 Paul Hoffman
<phoffman at imc.org> wrote:

> At 3:17 AM +0200 6/19/08, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>> There are two or more interoperable implementations, it
>> only takes an implementation and interop report, and a
>> new "PubReq" proposing DS.  What do you think about it ?
> 
> Given that almost no one cares about Draft Standard vs.
> Proposed  Standard (is anyone really not going to implement
> IDNs because of the  status), I would prefer to focus on the
> IDNA2008 documents. This  seems more like bookkeeping.

Frank,

I agree with Paul but for an additional reason.  We have having
too much trouble getting and keeping people focused in IDNA2008
already, as evidenced by the fact that posting new documents,
Paul's notes, my attempts at posting issues lists (which are
usually controversial if only for what is and is not on them),
etc., just aren't drawing focused responses that would permit us
to move forward.  We've gotten this far in part by promising to
not try to mess with Stringprep.  Opening it up for DS could
easily increase the confusion and set everything back.

My preference would be to finish IDNA2008 and _then_ go back and
look at Stringprep/3942 (and SASLPrep, etc.) and ask, not just
"what is in the errata" and "can we move this forward
procedurally" but, "what did we learn with IDNA that should be
applied here".  The latter is almost exactly the course of
action that was discussed in and after the SAAG discussion on
IDNA revisions and still seems right to me.  I'd be happy if the
answer were "no" and almost as happy if the answer were "yes,
but we need to add the Unicode 5.1 diffs and cycles at
Proposed", but I think that question needs to be asked... and
that this is just not the right time to ask it.

   john





More information about the Idna-update mailing list