Process to move forward? Was RE: IAB Statement on Identifiers and Unicode 7.0.0

Shawn Steele Shawn.Steele at
Wed Jan 28 19:38:05 CET 2015

Missed a bit, sorry to backtrack

> Which WG? If you mean this mailing list: this list is *not* an IETF WG at all. It is just a mailing list, with no chair and no consensus process.

Sorry, I know that the WG is done, but (many of) the same people are still here.  It's unclear to me what the IAB expects the process to be.  Typically standards are driven by WG's making RFCs under various processes, not by the IAB itself.  Typically those RFCs involve discussion and consensus on things like this mailing list.  However Klensin's draft is just that, a draft, which (rather obviously) has no consensus, but is pointed to by the IAB statement.  The IAB is giving bias to the draft's position that "there is a serious problem", which is not the consensus.

Anyway, what does the IAB expect to happen at this point?  You said that this WG wasn't an appropriate venue for resolving this issue, however you killed the old thread and started another thread on the same WG.  Do we need to form the WG again?


More information about the Idna-update mailing list