Consensus Call Tranche 8 Summary - Addendum

[John C Klensin]

Mark,

Thanks.  I will save this text in case there is agreement that
it should be used.  I believe that the first questions are the
ones that Andrew stated implicitly: whether we believe Rationale
should evolve in this direction and, then, whether this type of
comment and pointer is the optimal (or only) one to make.

I also wonder whether the definition of a "technical character"
is well understood within the community that might be reading
that document.

   best,
   john


--On Wednesday, 22 October, 2008 17:36 +0200 Mark Davis
<mark at macchiato.com> wrote:

>> If people feel that recommendation
>> should be made explicit in the documents somewhere, please
>> suggest text and where to put it.
> 
> Here's a concrete suggestion.
> 
> [In 4.4. Registry Restrictions, after the first paragraph,
> add:]
> 
> Note: In constructing registry policies that disallow historic
> or technical characters to reduce opportunities for confusion,
> some relevant information may be found at [Unicode-Exclusions]
> and [Unicode-Security].
> 
> 
> [In 12.2. Informative References, add:]
> 
> [Unicode-Exclusions]
> The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Standard Annex #31:
> Unicode Identifier and Pattern Syntax", March 2008, Section
> 2.4. "Specific Character Adjustments", Table 4.
> "Candidate Characters for Exclusion from Identifiers", <
> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr31/>.
> 
> [Unicode-Security]
> The
> Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Technical Standard #39: Unicode
> Security Mechanisms", August 2006, Section 3.1. "General
> Security Profile for Identifiers", <
> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr39/>.
> 
> 
> Mark