Changing DISALLOWED (was Re: Reserved general punctuation)

John C Klensin klensin at
Fri May 2 18:07:12 CEST 2008

--On Friday, 02 May, 2008 15:46 +0100 Debbie Garside
<debbie at> wrote:

> Patrik wrote:
> [re 3]
>>> Can not happen (yet) as we have no such procedure in place.
>>> And if we
> have, and require for example a 4 week comment period, what is
> the real difference between this and issuing a new RFC?
> Realistically, about 6-12 months, as a minimum, is the
> difference.


I would be very concerned about anything in this area that had
to be done hastily.  Speaking much more generally than about
IDNs, an attitude that haste is more important than careful
consideration and review of possible side-effects has often been
a source of problems for standards work in the IETF, ISO, and

That said, if there were general consensus that fast publication
were really important and especially if the relevant document is
short and to the point, we have mechanisms for getting RFCs
published in around 60 days (that limit is imposed by provisions
for appeals).   In recent months, the _normal_ publication
interval after sign off has been fairly close to that 60 day
window anyway, with a number of documents being edited, checked
and approved for publication (separate steps from approval of
the substance for Standards Track documents -- unlike some ISO
components, we do not permit approval of a document with a
more-or-less-specific list of proposed changes followed by
publication without anyone but the editors looking at the final
text) and then simply held for the remainder of the 60 days for
the appeal-window timer to run out.

So, wherever your "about 6-12 months, as a minimum" inference
comes from, it is not a necessary property of IETF procedures or
current practices as I understand them.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list