I-D Action:draft-faltstrom-5892bis-01.txt

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Tue Dec 14 05:34:25 CET 2010

Hello John, others,

On 2010/12/14 13:05, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Monday, December 13, 2010 11:30 -0800
> Internet-Drafts at ietf.org wrote:
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
>> Internet-Drafts directories.
>> 	Title           : The Unicode code points and IDNA - Unicode
>> 6.0 	Author(s)       : P. Faltstrom, P. Hoffman
>> 	Filename        : draft-faltstrom-5892bis-01.txt
>> 	Pages           : 4
>> 	Date            : 2010-12-13
>> ...
> I hope the comments that follow are complementary to Martin's,
> not competitive with them.

They are quite complementary indeed. And I think they definitely should 
be taken into account.

Regards,   Martin.

> I believe that they are editorial,
> rather than substantive, but may be important.
> (1) The organization of this document almost implies that the
> three characters identified are the only changes from Unicode
> 5.2 to Unicode 6.0.  That is not the case.  A lot of new
> characters have been added and, extrapolating from James's
> comments, we should be doing at least a pro forma review as to
> whether all of the others are associated with properties that
> cause them to be appropriated classified for IDNA purposes.
> That suggests to me that either:
> 	-- this draft needs a brief summary of the other changes
> 	made in 6.0, number of new characters added, etc.  That
> 	can be done in large measure with some anchoring text
> 	and a citation of a Unicode change summary, but it ought
> 	to be done.
> 	-- the abstract, introduction, and maybe even title need
> 	to be narrowed down to make it clear that the document
> 	addresses _only_ those characters that were defined in
> 	Unicode 5.2 or earlier and whose properties changed in
> 	6.0 in a way that effects IDNA.
> I'm pretty agnostic about that choice right now (someone could
> easily persuade me that one or the other was better), but I
> think it has to be one or the other.
> (2) I think that, if there is going to be a section titled "IETF
> Consensus" that the reasoning for the conclusion should be
> given, even if it is in abbreviated form.  This is an informed
> decision, not the result of some voting process among the
> ignorant.
> (3) The statement in Section 2 that reads "The IETF will produce
> a new RFC of this type for every change..." is quite significant
> and a major step, reversing a decision to be deliberately vague
> on this subject when 5890ff were written.   It also binds us to
> a strategy that many had hoped would gradually evolve into an
> IANA activity with some expert support as experience
> accumulated.  It commits the IETF to producing a new RFC with
> every version and sub-version of Unicode -- somewhat over one
> per year if recent patterns continue and my arithmetic is
> correct.  We have rarely made such commitments and, IMO, have
> had difficulty consistently supporting them when we have.  I
> recommend replacing it with a statement that this document is
> being produced because 6.0 is the first version of Unicode to be
> released since IDNA2008 was published and leaving the future
> somewhat more open-ended.
>     -john
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update

#-# 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 mailing list