Charter, changes in prefixes, and documentation

Martin Duerst duerst at
Wed Mar 26 08:35:28 CET 2008

That works for me, too.

[I'm still not convinced that we fully understand the consequences
of removing the character mapping from the protocol, and that we
might just move from one set of (currently perceived) problems
to another set of (future) problems, but I think that this is
indeed fundamental to the current approach and that a recharter
would be appropriate if we come to the conclusion that it was a
bad idea.]

Regards,   Martin.

At 12:13 08/03/26, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>At 10:20 PM -0400 3/25/08, John C Klensin wrote:
>>--On Tuesday, 25 March, 2008 18:24 -0700 Mark Davis
>><mark.davis at> wrote:
>>>  That works for me. Item (iii) needs fleshing out a bit.
>>>                 (iii) A change to the basic approach taken in
>>>  the design                team documents.
>>>  It is clear when a change would violate (i) or (ii) would be,
>>>  but not clear what kind of change would violate (iii).
>>I more or less copied that, with some slight re-wording, from
>>the last version that was posted.   I would welcome narrower
>>language, but am also not sure it is necessary.
>Given that a few people expressed confusion on that wording, it seems necessary. How about:
>(iii) A change to the approach in the design team documents (a protocol that is independent of Unicode versions, that removes any character mapping in the protocol, and has improvements to the bidi algorithm).
>That does not cover all the changes between IDNA2003 and the design team design, (see <>), but it covers the high points that could cause a charter refresh.
>Idna-update mailing list
>Idna-update at

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#       mailto:duerst at     

More information about the Idna-update mailing list