patrik at frobbit.se
Thu Dec 23 08:27:23 CET 2010
On 22 dec 2010, at 19.42, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> 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.
The process in the IETF works like this...there is SOME consensus to write words in a document. For example on a mailing list like this. Then when the document is last called, we know whether there is IETF consensus for whatever the document claims.
Because of this, documents doesn't have to spell out what kind of consensus there is, because it is sort of given by the (current) status of the document.
For the rest of the detailed discussion on consensus on _this_ topic, I sort of rely on descriptions I have got from the Hiroshima meeting plus what is said on this mailing list -- as I was not in Hiroshima.
More information about the Idna-update