Eszett and IDNAv2 vs IDNA2008
vint at google.com
Fri Mar 20 14:50:14 CET 2009
If there is a formal re-chartering process that doesn't require BOF,
I'm happy to follow that process. I hope we don't have to go there in
any event but that's for the WG to decide.
1818 Library Street, Suite 400
Reston, VA 20190
vint at google.com
On Mar 20, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Ebw wrote:
> Lots of working groups recharter.
> I'm not advocating, but the process step in your earlier mail (to BoF)
> surprised me.
> Sent from my iPhone, painfully.
> On Mar 20, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
>> Simon perhaps we are not too far apart. Re-charter, as I understand
>> it, would involve the same kind of community consensus building
>> that a
>> BOF does.
>> Before we come to the conclusion that we need new prefix, new
>> charters, etc, I would sure like to have an assessment of the
>> implications of adopting the present specifications. We already know
>> there are some backward incompatibilities and I believe this was
>> understood going into the WG in the first place. The question is how
>> these can be addressed and whether the solutions are considered
>> Vint Cerf
>> 1818 Library Street, Suite 400
>> Reston, VA 20190
>> vint at google.com
>> On Mar 20, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>> Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> writes:
>>>> introduction of a new prefix at this late stage strikes me as a
>>>> starter. It is proving hard enough to deal with the issues on the
>>>> table associated with the xn-- prefix. What we need to do is to
>>>> evaluate essentially the present IDNA2008 specification and
>>>> implications and transition issues associated with its
>>> I agree, but maybe for different reasons.
>>> If the IDNA2008 protocol introduces backwards incompatible changes
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update