AW: Sharp-S and Final Sigma Consensus Call Results

Shawn Steele Shawn.Steele at
Wed Dec 9 22:48:11 CET 2009

> Since I'm trying to look at text this afternoon and evening, is there agreement that it would be wise to add a "SHOULD NOT change the interpretation of valid strings by mapping PVALID characters to anything else" to the portion of Protocol where mapping is mentioned, or should (sic) I leave well enough alone?
If the former, is that a correct statement of the proposition?

The sneaky part of me that still thinks not bundling these is a bad idea likes "SHOULD NOT" because it allows me to do something interesting if I was smart enough to figure out what.  In practice though I think that if the WG thinks it's important than it is worth a "MUST NOT" for consistent behavior.  I'm concerned, however, that MUST NOT might prevent any transitional behavior (though I confess I don't see how any of the transition ideas help so far), in which case I'd suggest leaving out such a statement.

So either "don’t add anything," or "make it MUST NOT".  (How's that for waffling? :) )


More information about the Idna-update mailing list