AW: Sharp-S and Final Sigma Consensus Call Results

[Vint Cerf]

Thank you, Georg.

Alexander, should I show you favoring PVALID for Sharp-S only
or are you supporting PVALID for both Sharp-S and Final Sigma?

vint





On Dec 9, 2009, at 6:51 AM, Georg Ochsner wrote:

> Hello Vint,
>
> as far as I see Alexander (nic.at) finally (7. Dezember 2009 13:54)  
> wrote:
>
>> Looking at the options that we have now, I agree that none of them  
>> are
>> perfect, but I think in the long run, the best thing we can do for  
>> "ß"
>> is:
>>
>> - declare it PVALID in IDNAbis *and* normatively disallow mapping of
>> PVALID characters
>> - leave any policy decision about how to handle the potential  
>> transition
>> to the respective zone admin / registry / community.
>
> In your document he is listed as "neither".
>
> Best
> Georg
>
>
>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:idna-update-
>> bounces at alvestrand.no] Im Auftrag von Vint Cerf
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Dezember 2009 10:09
>> An: idna-update at alvestrand.no
>> Betreff: Sharp-S and Final Sigma Consensus Call Results
>>
>> Attached is a PDF of the spreadsheet I maintained during the past
>> week's discussions. If you detect errors or omissions, kindly advise.
>>
>> It is also important to note that the Unicode Technical Committee
>> responded to a formal request for their opinion that Sharp-S and  
>> Final
>> Sigma should be PVALID
>>
>> On the basis of this information, I think we have rough consensus in
>> the IDNABIS Working Group that Sharp-S and Final Sigma should be made
>> PVALID.
>>
>> The consensus call did not refer to the joiner/non-joiners and I
>> continue to believe that the WG has long since concluded these should
>> stay in CONTEXTJ
>>
>> With regard to transition, there is considerable diversity among the
>> WG as to preferences. In an absolute sense, the specification of a
>> protocol (the set of proposed RFCs developed during IDNABIS WG  
>> effort)
>> is independent of its introduction, so it might be argued that the WG
>> does not need to specify an adoption or transition plan. As a
>> practical matter, of course, something has to happen for the results
>> to get into use.
>>
>> Perhaps a small step forward would be for the editor of Rationale to
>> make reference to the need for operators (I use this term in its most
>> general sense to include registries, registrars, makers of software
>> that rely on the DNS, etc) to assess their adoption plans in the
>> context of an environment that includes a mix of IDNA2003 and  
>> IDNA2008
>> "speakers" for a period of time likely to be measurable in years.
>>
>> I will try to produce a possible transition synthesis drawn from
>> various suggestions in the WG discussion on transition - however,  
>> that
>> will take another couple of days as I am tied up with all-day  
>> meetings
>> today and tomorrow.
>>
>> This message, however, is intended to convey to the WG and the AD  
>> that
>> the chair believes we have rough consensus on making Sharp-S and  
>> Final
>> Sigma PVALID in IDNA2008.
>>
>> Vint Cerf
>
>