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

Paul Hoffman phoffman at imc.org
Wed Dec 22 19:42:51 CET 2010

At 9:44 AM -0800 12/22/10, Mark Davis ? wrote:
>So nobody should comment on any of the sentences having to do with the rationale for the backwards incompatibility?

Hyperbole is destroying the Internet.

Another interpretation would be that your proposal for a different wording for the IETF consensus was better than you saying that the first proposal was untrue, given that no one has measured the first one.

>I realize that the IETF has decided to break compatibility, that was my best shot at an explanation -- after listening to this list -- for why they are breaking it, which is why I suggested it.

Sounds like a reasonable alternate proposal. My take on the feeling of the Apps Area discussion in Beijing was what we put in the document because it seems likely that that will be the larger IETF consensus, but your alternate proposal seems possible as well.

>Should I have withheld comment on it?

That's a question only you can answer. :-)

More information about the Idna-update mailing list