I-D Action:draft-faltstrom-5892bis-02.txt

John C Klensin klensin at jck.com
Tue Feb 22 15:53:41 CET 2011

--On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 15:35 +0100 Patrik Fältström
<patrik at frobbit.se> wrote:

> And we *DID* have a call on this mailing list whether people
> wanted to have the three codepoints added, and the consensus
> was that they should NOT be added.
> That is why the 5892bis document looks like it does.
> My first version had added things to G.
> But I did take a step back based on the consensus on this
> mailing list.
> Once again, why are we opening this up?
> Only if I see consensus on that, I will as editor ask (again)
> what should be added to G, if anything.
> And we can see if the consensus this time will be different
> from last time.
> Do we really have to do that?

I hope not.  My two notes today and the one on the weekend have
simply been attempts to explain to Simon (and anyone else who
doesn't remember the earlier discussions) how the standard is
written, how it interacts with the current situation, and why
people are thinking about things the way they are.

As far as the document is concerned, I agree that, as far as I
can tell, we've reached consensus more than once and believe
that the recent conversation hasn't provided any new information
or caused any significant number of people to change positions.
So I think we should just push -03 to the IESG, ask them to
publish it, and be done with it.   As I said in one of my prior
notes, I believe that the perception of instability associated
with our not being able to make a decision about this is
becoming far more of a problem than the decision itself.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list