Hasty attempt to create an IDN WG (Was: WG Review: Internationalized Domain Name (idn)

Cullen Jennings fluffy at cisco.com
Thu Mar 6 04:52:24 CET 2008


I'm lost, what BOF are you talking about?


On Mar 4, 2008, at 6:19 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 04:32:08PM +0200,
>> Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote
>> a message of 21 lines which said:
>>> But it is quite common when we revise a specification that we have
>>> only an incomplete defect list. Or we may not have determined if a
>>> particular issue is really a defect. Understanding which specific
>>> issues have to be fixed is typically WG work in a bis spec effort.
>> But it is not in the charter, quite the contrary. The proposed  
>> charter
>> is written as if there was a consensus on the IDN problems (there is
>> not, besides the limitation to Unicode 3.2 and may be the bidi). No
>> work is planned to discuss the problems, only solutions are present  
>> in
>> the charter, already decided even before the WG exists.
> The charter is an agenda item at the BOF.
> If there's consensus that you're right and the proponents are wrong,  
> we
> can change it.
>                 Harald
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list
> IETF at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

More information about the Idna-update mailing list