Changing DISALLOWED (was Re: Reserved general punctuation)
vint at google.com
Thu May 1 21:03:56 CEST 2008
I expect that most of us want a pretty high barrier to any change
from DISALLOWED to something permitted. I would also be comfortable
with a higher barrier than (3) - including requiring a new RFC which
would imply a lot of scrutiny and broad buy-in.
On May 1, 2008, at 8:03 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> I am persuaded that (3) below seems the most reasonable path
>> but as always I am open to persuasion in other directions.
> I believe that (3) is correct, with two qualifications:
> (1) I am not sure that I see quite as much difference between a
> DISALLOWED -> CONTEXT change and a DISALLOWED -> Protocol-Valid
> change as I think (from the note below) that Mark does. That
> distinction may, in practice, be philosophical rather than
> practical and, again in practice, may not mean anything other
> than a belief that the bar for changes should be set very high.
> (2) As Patrik has pointed out several times in the context or
> exception and backward compatibility lists, until we are ready
> to define the exact process that permits (3) (or (4)), they are
> equivalent to (2). So, until and unless someone is ready to
> make a proposal to precisely define that process, the
> distinction between the de facto response of (2) and the
> proposed (3) position exists only in theory.
More information about the Idna-update