Re: [I18ndir] draft-faltstrom-unicode11-07

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

On 2/14/19 8:52 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:

> I do want to point you and everyone at John's review
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i18ndir/vFddEKMIN0DR55QALal16H_1WYw to
> see if you have any comments on it. In particular:
> 
> |TL;DR summary of this note: It is extremely unwise for the IETF to
> process draft-faltstrom-unicode11-07 before a number of other issues
> (and associated documents) are carefully considered and resolved.|

I think John raises valid concerns, which I understand as:

1. We really do need to figure out what to do about the issues described
in draft-klensin-idna-5892upd-unicode70, draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis,
and draft-freytag-troublesome-characters.

2. Advancing draft-faltstrom-unicode11 as-is could be perceived as
ignoring those issues.

3. We now have a proper venue in which to address those issues, so
perhaps we should give ourselves a chance to succeed.

4. At the least, we might want to include more explicit warnings in
draft-faltstrom-unicode11 about the risks of allowing "troublesome"
characters.

To illustrate why I think John's concerns might be valid, consider this
paragraph in §4.1 of draft-faltstrom-unicode11-07:

   U+08A1 is discussed in draft-freytag-troublesome-characters
   [I-D.freytag-troublesome-characters] and other Internet-Drafts.
   Regardless of whether the discussion of those drafts ends in
   recommendations to include the code point in the repertoire of
   characters permissable for registration or not, it is still
   acceptable to allow the code point to have a derived property value
   of PVALID.

Why would we define a code point as PVALID if we might conclude that it
should not be permitted in registrations?

As always, I stand ready to be corrected in matters of internationalization.

Peter