my comments on draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-14 (second part)
vint at google.com
Wed Sep 2 01:30:22 CEST 2009
this is a good compromise from my perspective.
On Sep 1, 2009, at 7:24 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Tuesday, September 01, 2009 19:19 -0400 Vint Cerf
> <vint at google.com> wrote:
>> thanks for this.
>> can you be persuaded to go along with the -15 version that
>> John is releasing, even if it does not contain all the
>> editorial recommendations you have made? John's point about
>> pace and delay are relevant here (to me anyway) since we are
>> now racing the clock to get this into IESG queue and also to
>> get final documents reported to RFC editor for publication
>> before ICANN has to move on with IDN TLD registrations.
> Vint, Martin,
> For whatever it is worth, I'm anxious enough to see this stuff
> progress at a least to Draft Standard that I'm willing to commit
> to going to work on that version of the text as soon as this
> stuff is signed off and on its way to the RFC Editor. Actually
> moving to that point will, of course, require interoperability
> demonstrations and updating of the other documents (and does not
> require the WG unless Lisa and Alexey insist), but I see no
> reason why we shouldn't have I-Ds with these sorts of changes
> posted within a few weeks after the IESG hands the present set
> off to the RFC Editor.
More information about the Idna-update