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

[Patrik Fältström]

Ken, thanks for this.

Makes sense.

What do others think?

   Patrik

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
>   "codepoint".
> 
> 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
>   document.
> 
> 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.
> 
> --Ken
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>