patrik at frobbit.se
Thu Dec 23 08:29:55 CET 2010
Ken, thanks for this.
What do others think?
On 22 dec 2010, at 23.50, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> 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.
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update