Eric Brunner-Williams ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Thu Dec 3 02:36:09 CET 2009


Feel free to assert that the IDNA 2003 WG made no choices of which its 
surviving participants now ... revisit.

Feel free to assert that the IDNAbis WG has no participants who argue, 
in fact, that one or more choices the IDNAbis WG made, may not be 

It is a nuisance, as Andrew observed, that revisiting just these 
choices is among the design agreements of the BoF, where IESG action 
was not required, and the chartering of this WG, where it was.

And as a contributor to a specification activity, formed outside of 
the IETF, and later reformed as an IETF WG, for which no running code 
existed, at either point in time, I wish to point out that your last 
sentence is only occasionally true.

Of course, the suggestion that a decision that PVALID is the better 
choice may be predicated on a lack of familiarity with the subject 
matter is interesting.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list