Consensus Call Tranche 1 (Document Organization)

[Vint Cerf]

DUE DATE: October 10, 2008 (ET)

Place your reply here: [YES or NO]

COMMENTS:


Procedure:


There are several decisions that the working group will need to make  
to confirm consensus.  I will send a series of proposals over the  
next two weeks requesting YES or NO positions on each within a 4 day  
window. If NO is the response, a reason for that position needs to be  
stated. If there is a clear consensus based on responses or in the  
absence ofa consensus against each proposal, it will be assumed that  
the proposal is acceptable to the Working Group.


Parenthesized symbols (e.g., "(R.1)") after the items are references  
to the issues lists where additional explanations can be found, as  
sent by John Klensin as body parts "idnabis-protocol-issues-rev3" and  
"idnabis-rationale-issues-03" on a message titled 'Issues lists and  
the "preprocessing" topic'  to the working group on 18 August (http:// 
www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2008-August/002537.html)

This group needs to get its documents out; it is behind its original  
schedule. It should be noted that the IDN ccTLD and gTLD selection  
initiatives at ICANN have already begun so that delay may weaken the  
IETF's ability to assist in a rational deployment of IDNA.


(1) Document organization


(1.a) The Rationale document should be retained to support  
implementors whose work requires that they understand the reasoning  
behind certain design choices.  The philosophy of IDNA2008 relies  
strongly on the ability of registries (especially those of top-level  
domains) to properly constrain the choice of labels even if they are  
composed of characters that are protocol valid.  (R.1)

(1.b) While there has been debate about whether or not the content of  
the Rationale document should contain normative material, it seems  
expedient to agree on the content of Rationale for Proposed Standard  
without attempting to separate it into multiple parts. Therefore, it  
appears that the WG consensus is that: The normative material  
(definitions) should be retained in Rationale.

A YES means you concur with the consensus statements above.

The alternative is:

- The normative material should be removed from Rationale and  
extracted to a separate document (for example Terms and Concepts)  
even if this lengthens the WG's target dates for an unknown period of  
time.  Note that there may be controversy about what material is  
normative and what is not; that is a separate consensus issue and may  
also take an unknown period of time to resolve   (R.2)


NOTE NEW BUSINESS ADDRESS AND PHONE
Vint Cerf
Google
1818 Library Street, Suite 400
Reston, VA 20190
202-370-5637
vint at google.com




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20081006/aedeb5c7/attachment.htm