Idna-update Digest, Vol 15, Issue 69
Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com
Wed Mar 26 02:29:24 CET 2008
+1. I like (i) & (ii), but I'm also not sure what (iii) would be.
That works for me. Item (iii) needs fleshing out a bit.
(iii) A change to the basic approach taken in the design
It is clear when a change would violate (i) or (ii) would be, but not clear
what kind of change would violate (iii).
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 5:18 PM, John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com> wrote:
> (1) As far as the charter is concerned, let's be explicit about
> this. Rather than scattering language and restrictions
> throughout the charter, let's make an explicit subsection that
> says something like
> The WG will stop, close, and recommend that a new
> charter be generated if it concludes that any of the
> following are necessary to meet its goals:
> (i) A change to the "punycode" algorithm or the ACE
> approach to encoding names in the DNS
> (ii) A change to the ACE prefix from "xn--"
> (iii) A change to the basic approach taken in the design
> team documents.
More information about the Idna-update