Eszett and IDNAv2 vs IDNA2008

Lisa Dusseault lisa.dusseault at gmail.com
Fri Mar 20 17:51:33 CET 2009


Yes, a WG can discuss its own recharter, come to consensus, and ask
the wider community to review the recharter if the changes are
substantial -- without a BOF.

Lisa

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> Vint Cerf
> Google
> 1818 Library Street, Suite 400
> Reston, VA 20190
> 202-370-5637
> vint at google.com
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 20, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Ebw wrote:
>
>> Vint,
>>
>> Lots of working groups recharter.
>>
>> I'm not advocating, but the process step in your earlier mail (to BoF)
>> surprised me.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> 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
>>> acceptable.
>>>
>>> v
>>>
>>> Vint Cerf
>>> Google
>>> 1818 Library Street, Suite 400
>>> Reston, VA 20190
>>> 202-370-5637
>>> vint at google.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 20, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> introduction of a new prefix at this late stage strikes me as a
>>>>> non-
>>>>> 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
>>>>> understand
>>>>> implications and transition issues associated with its
>>>>> introduction.
>>>>
>>>> I agree, but maybe for different reasons.
>>>>
>>>> If the IDNA2008 protocol introduces backwards incompatible changes
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>


More information about the Idna-update mailing list