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