Re-opening discussion about Mapping

John C Klensin klensin at
Mon Feb 8 05:02:12 CET 2010


FWIW, I find myself in 100% agreement with Paul on his answers.
I would add that I'd hope that any additional mapping proposals,
via the Independent Submission Editor or otherwise, be very
careful to be consistent with the base IDNA2008 documents and,
in particular, avoid doing anything that could make a valid
IDNA2008 U-label inaccessible.


--On Sunday, February 07, 2010 18:58 -0800 Paul Hoffman
<phoffman at> wrote:

> Just the polling questions from the PDF:
>> Working Group Question:
>> 1. Would the WG like to adopt the current "mapping document"
>> as-is?
> Yes.
>> 2. Would the WG like to engage in further discussion about
>> this document, for example in the context of the Unicode TR46
>> that advocates substantially more mapping than the present
>> "mappings" document?
> No. This seems to me unlikely to come to even rough WG or IETF
> consensus. Having said that, I would encourage anyone else who
> has a mapping proposal to consider making it an RFC through
> the Independent Submissions Editor.
>> 3. Would the WG propose an alternative path towards dealing
>> with the question of mapping and if so, what proposition(s)
>> are offered by the WG members?
> No. Exhaustion set in months ago.
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at

More information about the Idna-update mailing list