[I18ndir] text of conclusion

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

Looking again at Section 6 ("Conclusion") of draft-faltstrom-unicode12,
I have a question:

   As described in Section 4 and Section 5, changes have been made to
   Unicode between version 6.2.0 and 12.0.0.  Some changes to specific
   characters changed their derived property value, while other changes
   did not.  Given what is described in Section 3.3 and the changes
   described, including implications to normalization, the conclusion of
   this document is to not add any exception rules to IDNA2008.

   This does not preclude any such updates to RFC 5892 [RFC5892] or any
   other IDNA2008 related document in the future when new versions of
   the Unicode Standard is released, and it might also happen that it is
   found the algorithm specified in IDNA2008 is not suitable for DNS
   without additional rules, categories, or tuning.

Depending on what we mean by "such updates", this could be read as
implying that updates to RFC 5892 would happen only or primarily because
of changes introduced in new versions of the Unicode Standard. However,
although the issues described in draft-klensin-idna-5892upd-unicode70
might have been noticed because U+08A1 was introduced in Unicode 7.0.0,
as we know they were lurking in the shadows all along.

(Also, should "6.2.0" be "6.3.0" in the first paragraph?)

Here is a suggested modification:

   As described in Section 4 and Section 5, changes have been made to
   Unicode between version 6.3.0 and version 12.0.0.  Some changes to
   specific characters resulted in changes to their derived property
   value for IDNA, whereas other changes did not.  Given the deployment
   considerations described in Section 3.3 and the Unicode changes
   described in Section 4 and Section 5, including implications for
   normalization, the conclusion of this document is to not add any
   exception rules to IDNA2008.

   This document addresses only changes to Unicode between version 6.3.0
   and version 12.0.0.  Changes in future Unicode versions might result
   in the conclusion that exception rules need to be added to IDNA2008.
   Separately from any changes in Unicode, the IETF might conclude that
   updates to RFC 5892 [RFC5892] or other IDNA2008 documents might
   become necessary; such updates might include changes to the algorithm
   specified in IDNA2008 as well as additional rules, categories, or
   other forms of tuning.

Thoughts?

Peter