Updates to Exceptions and BackwardCompatible Sets

[Elisabeth Blanconil]

I apologize for having sent this mail on different maling lists. It
discloses an exchange on another mailing list and and the strategy of
this list. Please disregard it.
Elisabeth Blanconil

2009/7/16 Elisabeth Blanconil <eblanconil at gmail.com>:
> Bingo ! They did it, just in time !!!
>
> 16 months ago, JFC explained us that:
>> * the WG would proceed slowlly, trying to make us look the bad guys.
> * that just before the end of the ICANN JPA there would be a blunt
> pressure probably using an IETF meeting.
> * it would be for a crash packaged wrapp-up including an industry
> controlled Classified Character Reviewer using another
> IETF-alvestrand.no mailing list.
> * this would be to provide an IETF maintenance of a IANA/Unicode IDNA
> table and lists.
> * that would extend the CLDR locale files to complete globalization
> (internationalization, localization, filtering, IDN). The reason why
> they refused to discuss IDNs at the WG-LTRU..
> * this could even be merged with RFC 4646 alvestrand.no mailing list
> so Michael Everson might manage the table, correct Patrick's
> suggestions, and offer a lighter-weight process having some real
> experience of containing undue requests.
>
> Here it is, clearly introduced within a few minutes, after just
> resurecting the "overwhelming" TATWEEL consensus, 10 days before being
> the WG is welcomed by .se and .museum, and probably some ICANN, ccTLD,
> linguists, "hurluberlus" (US Industry French supporters), ISOC
> sponsors good coming support during the week.
>
> 2009/7/15 23:26 Wil Tan <dready at gmail.com>:
>> What are the WG's expectations on possible updates to the list of exceptions?
>
> 2009/7/15 23:40 Vint Cerf (int at google.com>:
> nominally I think we hope that we will not have to deal with going
> from disallowed to contextO. I think the current view is that such
> changes should require IETF-level intervention in the near term
> although a lighter-weight process might be considered based on
> experience. Does anyone see this differently? vint
>
> 2009/7/15 23:49 Mark Davis ⌛ <mark at macchiato.com>:
>> I think we need to strictly forbid, for stability's sake, any changes in the following direction: Making any change in the other direction should probably require IETF-level intervention in the near term, but as you say, might be made lighter-weight over time. DISALLOWED => CONTEXT* => PVALID, Does this match what you think, Vint? Mark
>
> Sure it does!
>
> Bravo, JFC !!!
>
>
> I do no not need a france at large consensus call :-). We all waited for
> this suggestion !!!. So, we all know the answer by core.
>
> We gave it from the very beginning. We are fully OK as long as this
> may be legitimatelly circumvented when needed, meaning there is no
> other MUST than to _fully_ support the DNS and that at least the
> Reviewer is actually periodically designated by the IESG ("as per
> non-applied RFC 4646" [JFC's quote]). Or the suggestion also is, (JFC
> says that it could please Mark) that ISO 639, 3106 and 10646 and
> Unicode co-chair the Reviewing committee. We just wish a dialog with
> the corresponding FLOSS/users approach that may result from our
> testing projects.
>
> france at large's position is quite simple: let respect the Charter, i.e.
> let not force orthotypography, character (and language) filtering at
> protocol level. Question is: is this also what Microsoft and Firefox
> want?
>
> MFBerny
>
>
> PS. Jefsey a gagné son pari ! je n'en reviens pas :-) On lui doit donc
> un dîner. Il est à Montpellier, je peux venir de Marseille. Où êtes
> vous en vacances d'ici la fin du mois ?
>
> Elisabeth Blanconil