SV: Consensus Call Tranche 1 (Document Organization)

Anne-Marie Eklund-Löwinder Anne-Marie.Eklund-Lowinder at iis.se
Wed Oct 8 14:44:39 CEST 2008


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

YES.

Anne-Marie Eklund Löwinder
Quality & Security Manager
.SE (The Internet Infrastructure Foundation)

PO Box 7399, SE-103 91 Stockholm, Sweden
Visits: Ringvägen 100 A
Switchboard: +46(0)8-452 35 00
Direct: +46(0)8-452 35 17
Mobile: +46(0)734-31 53 10
E-mail: anne-marie.eklund-lowinder at iis.se
Website: http://www.iis.se
 

> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no 
> [mailto:idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no] För Vint Cerf
> Skickat: den 6 oktober 2008 22:55
> Till: idna-update at alvestrand.no
> Ämne: Consensus Call Tranche 1 (Document Organization)
> 
> 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/00
> 2537.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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 9.8.3 (Build 4028)
Charset: utf-8

wj8DBQFI7Ks3pdzwAUKxz5QRAra1AJ97LSZvgk1zb60vSOl5kLwUDuwOnQCgkwyG
uHiqUMkbk0DLuTmw+oDIku4=
=zI6L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Idna-update mailing list