Consensus Call Tranche 4/5 (Settled Textual Issues and IANA Considerations

[Vint Cerf]

DUE DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2008 (ET)

Place your reply here: [YES or NO]

COMMENTS:

A YES response means that you agree with all of topics 4 and 5.

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.

(4) Textual issues believed settled

(4.a) The explanation of mappings in Rationale-02 and later is
satisfactory.   (R.24)

(4.b) The explanation of the symbol prohibition in Rationale-02
and later is satisfactory.   (R.25)

(4.c) The explanation of requirements on registries, the role
of registration policy, and their scope in Rationale-02 and
Protocol-05 is satisfactory (R.9, R.27, P.6).

(4.d) The description of the Bidi changes between IDNA2003 and
IDNA2008 in Rationale-02 is satisfactory.   (R.15)

(4.e) The description of detecting domain names in text and how
it interacts with the idea of alternate label separator
("dotoid") characters is adequate in Rationale-02  (R.23)

(4.f) The description of the implications of mapping changes
between IDNA2003 and IDNA2008 is satisfactory in Rationale-02
(R.28)

(4.g) The discussion of user agent security issues should be
retained in Section 6.3 of Rationale.  (R.6, R.19)

(4.h) The description of why we are using Unicode is
satisfactory in Rationale-02.   (R.13)

(4.i) With the new note warning that, while the lookup and
registration steps in Protocol are similar, they are not
identical, the structure of the description of those steps is
satisfactory. (P.10, P.15)


(4.j)  The text about A-label dislay that now appears in Rationale-02
is satisfactory.  (R.20)



(5) IANA Considerations and table changes.

(5.a) The IANA considerations section setting up the Contextual
Rule registry (in Tables, taken from Protocol at -03) is
satisfactory.   (R.8)

(5.b) We are agreed that changes to the table-defining rules,
and especially to lists of contextual rules and exception
characters, require IETF consensus and publication of a new
RFC.   (R.12)

(5.c) The IANA registry for contextual rules should be
maintained with a "last updated" date.   (P.16)

(5.d) The contextual rules themselves should be specified and
maintained as procedural steps, as discussed in Dublin. (P.2,
P.3)


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/20081006/21bc6bc6/attachment.htm