3492bis

Frank Ellermann hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz at gmail.com
Fri Jun 20 01:28:19 CEST 2008


JFC Morfin wrote:

> would you have a text to propose? It would make easier 
> to understand what it represents.

I looked at the 3492bis to 3492 diff before posting here,
and think that reading appendix D of the draft is easier,
YMMV, check it out:

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-costello-rfc3492bis-02.txt&url1=http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3492.txt

> I am sure that Adam could review the text upon the 
> experience of some discusions he shared, like for mail
> addresses.

Likely, but it makes no sense to bother him if this WG 
is not interested to support a 3492bis publication at
this time (together with the IDNAbis memos).

> It should provide full backward compatibility

"Backward compatibility" doesn't enter the picture, it
is precisely the same algorithm.  Just a few details
clarified, including a fix for one erratum reported by
the author.

 Frank



More information about the Idna-update mailing list