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

[Vint Cerf]

On Oct 6, 2008, at 5:00 PM, Vint Cerf wrote:

> DUE DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2008 (ET)
>
> Place your reply here:  YES
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20081007/54aed9f0/attachment-0001.html