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

Kenneth Whistler kenw at sybase.com
Wed Dec 22 23:50:48 CET 2010

Mark Davis said:

> ... To try to focus back on the substance, let me just say that 
> the following from Patrik's document should not be in the document
> for the reasons I outlined.
> > >IETF consensus
> >>is though that the changes are minor, and that it is important IDNA
> >>standard is aligned with the Unicode Standard.
> >
> >Do you agree or disagree?

Paul Hoffman replied:
> Disagree. The document should have a concise statement of IETF consensus.
> ...

This dialogue, for whatever reason, seems to be completely off
the rails. So despite my misgivings, I'm going to step in
and try again.

1. Paul stated: "The document should have a concise statement 
   of IETF consensus." I don't think anybody disagrees with
   that statement *about* the document. And in fact, the
   concise statement of IETF consensus is clearly stated
   in the *Abstract* of the document, to wit:
   "... The consensus is that no update is need to RFC
   5892 based on the changes made in Unicode 6.0."
   It is restated in Section 2. IETF Consensus:
   "No change to RFC 5892 is needed based on the changes
   made in Unicode 6."
   Now while I disagree with that consensus, I don't disagree
   that that is what the authors of this document think is
   the consensus, and I think the statement is clear and concise.
   And nobody is asking that that statement be removed or be
   changed, if that is in fact the consensus among those others
   participating here. (Although I would advise changing
   "6" to "6.0" in the Section 2 paragraph, so the two
   statements line up more exactly.)
2. The sentence that Mark was objecting to is in Section 4,
   Security Considerations. Presumably the content of
   a Security Considerations section should consist of a
   considerations of the security implications of the
   topic to hand. It should not contain a sentence that
   starts off with "IETF consensus is...", whose only
   effect is to muddy and dilute the clear and concise
   statement of the IETF Consensus in Section 2. IETF
   Consensus, because it states a *different* consensus
   than what Section 2 contains.
3. The sentence that Mark was objecting to contains at
   least two grammatical errors.
4. Given my points 2 and 3, I believe that the text in
   in Section 4, Security Considerations, might better
   be expressed thus:

4. Security Considerations

  When the algorithm presented in RFC 5892 is applied to Unicode 6.0
  the results will differ from when it is applied to Unicode 5.2
  for the three code points discussed in this document.
  The three code points are unlikely to occur in internationalized
  domain names, however, so the security implications of the
  changes are minor.

In addition to that, I have a couple of other comments on
the document.

A. "code point" should be spelled throughout with a space, not as
B. The first statement in the introduction contains two
   grammatical errors, and also a mistatement of fact.
   Please correct it to:
   RFC 5892 [RFC5892] specifies an algorithm that is based
   on The Unicode Standard [Unicode5.2] and which defines
   a derived property value.
   And then add [Unicode5.2] to the references list, distinct
   from [Unicode 6].
   After all, the whole point here is that RFC 5892 was
   based on Unicode 5.2, and Unicode 6.0 changed 3 code
   point properties -- hence the need to issue this new
C. If the authors and/or this work group consider it necessary
   to include the pro forma statement about it being important
   to maintain alignment between IDNA and the Unicode Standard,
   the appropriate place to do so is at the end of the
   3rd paragraph in Section 2. IETF Consensus. I would suggest
   continuing that paragraph with:
   "... The IETF considers it important that the IDNA
   standard remain aligned with the Unicode Standard."
I hope all of that is clear.



More information about the Idna-update mailing list