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

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Wed, 26 January 2011 07:09 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 BF6BC3A6942 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:09:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.234
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.234 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.444, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 nPBCm6KAU8gu for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:08:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 381873A684D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:08:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id p0Q7BQkd021539 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:11:26 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 6527_38ab_7d25ca80_291b_11e0_b6a8_001d096c5782; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:11:26 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:49720) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S14BEC81> for <apps-discuss@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:11:25 +0900
Message-ID: <4D3FC90B.3000205@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:11:07 +0900
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst=22?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <AANLkTi=dTc7vbCT5=Ph+m5oareisS133F2dRO3azz5wR@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=dTc7vbCT5=Ph+m5oareisS133F2dRO3azz5wR@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "idna-update@alvestrand.no" <idna-update@alvestrand.no>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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 07:09:06 -0000

Hello Barry,

[cc (former) IDNA WG mailing list]

The current -01 draft of this document was reviewed and discussed 
extensively on the (former) IDNA WG mailing list last December
(see 
http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2010-December/thread.html). 
In my understanding, there was quite some agreement on what needed to be 
fixed, and these fixes were mostly editorial, although some of them on a 
very hight level.

I have nothing against making that draft a working item of the Apps WG 
(hopefully being done with it very quickly, because it has already been 
discussed extensively on the IDNA list), but I'd prefer to do this in a 
way that avoids having to send in the same comments twice. My preference 
would be to have the authors integrate the comments from the IDNA list 
and then take the draft up here, because I think it will make it easier 
for reviewers here to review the draft.

Regards,  Martin.

On 2011/01/26 11:15, Barry Leiba wrote:
> 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.

[in a later mail]

> Sorry; I meant to include a link to the document:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-faltstrom-5892bis

> Barry, appsawg chair
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp