Consensus Call Tranche 1 (Document Organization)

[Yoshiro YONEYA]

> Place your reply here: [YES or NO]

NO

> COMMENTS:

Rationale document should be an informational document that explains 
- background of IDNA2008
- IDNA2008 design concept / philosophy
- IDNA2008 documents structure
- IDNA2008 requirements
and so on.  If it is intended to be "informational", it should be 
just "informational".

Normative materials should be described in other documents such as 
protocol document that evolve through standard track.  We should 
avoid such cases that no recommendations in rationale document such 
as local mapping are implemented in applications and lost backward 
compatibility with IDNA2003.  In order to assure this, standard track 
documents should have all relevant normative materials.

-- 
Yoshiro YONEYA <yone at jprs.co.jp>

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 16:54:52 -0400 Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>