Remove reference to 4690 from charter
John C Klensin
klensin at jck.com
Tue Mar 18 20:30:30 CET 2008
--On Tuesday, 18 March, 2008 11:23 -0700 Lisa Dusseault
<ldusseault at commerce.net> wrote:
> 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."
To be clear, I have absolutely no objection to removing the 4690
reference from the charter, partially because I don't read into
it nearly as much as those who are protesting do. I would have
a problem if there were an a priori bar on specific sections of
the new documents referencing particular sections of 4690
informatively for additional explanation, but that doesn't seem
to be at issue at the moment.
Let's just get on with this -- there are too many substantive
issues to be discussed for us to keep wasting time nit-picking
particular sentences of the charter.
More information about the Idna-update