my comments on draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-14 (second part)
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Wed Sep 2 04:43:50 CEST 2009
Hello John, Vint,
I'm glad to see that John in particular is understanding and
appreciating my comments.
For many of them, I think it's fine to defer them, as long as I don't
have to keep the task list :-). There are a few (in particular I seem to
remember section 4.1) where I really had now clue what was intended, and
I fear that there's a great chance that implementations may vary widely,
and therefore I'd prefer at least those to be addressed now.
Overall, I'm rather unhappy with the general quality of the documents,
because I think in a big part, they are the result of the "we have to
hurry up, we can always clean things up later" mentality that was very
often dominant in this WG. I know that John (and all our other editors)
can write better specs, and I think the above mentality has overall
resulted in less quality without actually using less time. So I'm not
happy to see the "we don't have much time now" argument brought up again.
Of course, if there is rough consensus to address some things later,
then I'll accept that.
On 2009/09/02 8:30, Vint Cerf wrote:
> 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.
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
More information about the Idna-update