Changing DISALLOWED (was Re: Reserved general punctuation)
vint at google.com
Thu May 1 17:55:54 CEST 2008
I am hearing from others too that they are more comfortable with a
higher bar, such as 1 or 2. In the interest of some flexibility
perhaps #2 is a reasonable compromise between #1 and #3?
On May 1, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 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.
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update