[iucg] [Gen-art] LC review: draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi-06.txt

jean-michel bernier de portzamparc jmabdp at gmail.com
Tue Oct 6 15:03:22 CEST 2009

2009/10/6 Marie-France Berny <mfberny at gmail.com>

> At 11:14 06/10/2009, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>>> I object to the removal of CS, because specs other than IDNA might make
>>> use of BIDI. Please see my previous mail.
> +1
> Removing them adds nothing to IDNA but may create an additional problem
> with idnaplus when we succeeded in miniminzing them quite to nil. What would
> be the interest?

I object to a removal at this stage. The current IDNA document set has been
reviewed by many people we asked if it could support the international
semantic addressing scheme we work on. The response was positive and we
therefore joined the WG consensus. Removing CS at this stage is something we
cannot accept as it would call for new review round. This would call at
least for one month, work, time, explanations, and probably some credibility
loss with experts of whose we need further cooperation.

Unless obviously if there is a clear dirimant reason? But this does not seem
to be the case?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20091006/90dc35a0/attachment-0001.htm 

More information about the Idna-update mailing list