Remove reference to 4690 from charter

Lisa Dusseault ldusseault at
Tue Mar 18 19:23:32 CET 2008

I don't think there will be any problem informatively referencing  
RFC4690 in the documents, and expect people to read it.   It  
definitely informs the work of the WG even if the WG doesn't adopt  
every goal wholesale.

If people are still split over this issue, we can try putting it back  
in the charter and wordsmithing the reference there:

"RFC4690 informs this work, although the WG is not expected to solve  
all the problems and address all of the issues that RFC4690 identifies."



On Mar 17, 2008, at 5:35 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

> --On Monday, 17 March, 2008 13:13 -0700 Paul Hoffman
> <phoffman at> wrote:
>> Lisa said:
>>> Here are the TODOs on the charter from the meeting:
>>>  - Consensus to remove reference to 4690 from charter
>> I agree with this move. RFC 4690 did many things at once, and
>> it is not clear that we intend to do every one of those things
>> in this WG.
> I have no objection to removing the 4690 reference from the
> charter. However, no charter draft that I have seen says "solve
> all of the problems and address all of the issues that 4690
> identified" and I'm a little concerned about this level of
> micro-tuning of the charter (whether by removing things or
> specifying additional ones).
> Especially because IDNA is a client-side protocol in which it is
> difficult to test for conformance on the wire, it is, IMO,
> important that the output of this effort identify _why_ things
> are being done and, in essence, why people should conform to the
> standard.   To the extent to which 4690 provides that rationale
> for some of the provisions, it is probably better to have
> informative references to it than to need to replicate all of
> the text.  I hope that remains an acceptable option and that we
> can avoid a model in which people are expected to do things just
> because the IETF says so.  The latter has not worked well with
> IDNA2003; I see no reason to believe it will work any better
> going forward.
>     john
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at

More information about the Idna-update mailing list