[apps-discuss] For consideration as an appsawg document: draft-faltstrom-5892bis

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 26 January 2011 02:12 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E46A3A6902 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:12:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.815
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.815 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.162, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id buVneIn2krER for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:12:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D2143A68D5 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:12:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwn40 with SMTP id 40so470539iwn.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:15:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=zdknrxhUXx8R/dpgU6Vn7n1AHlDVFMKGKviIuLiJH3I=; b=hyeflM83uKec8F+aiJPcOXt/j5yxpmgw7B3LkFMH5DYqWONjbEYOli/dNI9/46FH4v ywWTkXYOfwywvqs5/8B22Q3InmIX5PQ0g1edKnqOOAD/VLHrwPEM2yrYDQfPK8/TmLw9 ENXbN6KFRR/YbFsRuDpYRxlzyMP2z0BoS2Ig0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; b=Wi0M+Kjnfm/Q9k9H4VHHkPa0/KG33T44oR1A/pG2lk0CxbfCHpmpqtI0BZAsovOB5B tjP82LL6LmIBC8ZfMryQPiI9o54Xxg98Cp2EEWFYlDlA4684RgKm8atw9hbDiE6mMG8z mTTK9VQyPPDFBbJZNZMhLHk6iC9sLHvHbB0vw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.218.200 with SMTP id hr8mr7625467icb.219.1296008144205; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:15:44 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.42.227.193 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:15:44 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:15:44 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: QlDkG_bwiDIK7bClhoz5-_5fXQM
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=dTc7vbCT5=Ph+m5oareisS133F2dRO3azz5wR@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: [apps-discuss] For consideration as an appsawg document: draft-faltstrom-5892bis
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 02:12:46 -0000

This document was one we discussed at IETF 79 in Beijing, and the
chairs and ADs recommend that the appsawg working group adopt, review,
and discuss it.

The document deals with bringing IDNAbis (IDNA 2008) up to the Unicode
6.0 level.  At issue are three particular code points that have been
reclassified by Unicode 6.0.

While we discussed the document in Beijing, it has changed since then,
in that its recommendation is very different to the version that was
posted at the time.  This is the abstract from the -01 version, posted
in December:

   This document specifies IETF consensus related to and changes made to
   Unicode when version 6.0 was released on Oct 11 2011.  The consensus
   is that no update is needed to RFC 5892 based on the changes made in
   Unicode 6.0.

The appsawg chairs will be looking for objections to accepting this as
a working group document; please make such objections by 4 Feb.  In
any case, please review the document and comment on it.  We'd like to
see whether the applications area supports the consensus claim made in
the abstract above, or does not... so please post comments either way.

Barry, appsawg chair