Changing DISALLOWED (was Re: Reserved general punctuation)
Paul Hoffman
phoffman at imc.org
Thu May 1 17:49:51 CEST 2008
Excerpted:
At 7:17 PM -0700 4/30/08, Mark Davis wrote:
>1. We say that once DISALLOWED, always DISALLOWED.
>
>2. We say that characters can only be removed from DISALLOWED by an
>obsoleting RFC.
>
>3. We say that characters can only be removed from DISALLOWED by the
>committee/mechanism that controls CONTEXT/exceptions, and only in
>extremis.
>
>4. We say that characters can only be removed from DISALLOWED by the
>committee/mechanism that controls CONTEXT/exceptions, and but that
>committee is not designed to be conservative.
>
>I think #3 would be the best, and #2 acceptable, while #1 and #4 are
>extremes that could cause problems.
I respectfully disagree that #3 would be best because the IETF has
had numerous problems with "committe/mechanism" setups, particularly
ones that shut down for a few years and then need to be restarted. I
do not think that a committee for IDNs would be any better suited to
this than other committees in the past. It's a problem with the IETF,
but it is one we should be honest about.
My preference would be #1/#2, which really are the same. It should be
made clear that they are talking about a standards-track RFC, which
means that it needs to be approved by the IESG, but that has a higher
chance of predicable results and opportunities for community input
that #3.
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list