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

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:[e-mail]