Re: [I18nrp] Additional input needed for i18nRP BOF

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 6/6/18 21:31, John C Klensin wrote:
> (2) It seems to me that, very crudely, there are two rather
> different types of documents of interest.   One, which seems to
> have been dominating the discussion, is a protocol or other spec
> for which i18n issues are incidental or only part of the story
> and that requires that they be checked for having been
> competently addressed.  The other is an actual i18n spec.  So,
> as an exercise for those designing solutions, consider
>     draft-klensin-idna-5892upd-unicode70
>     and
>     draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis
>
> and how the proposed solutions would work for them.

John --

After thinking through this issue a bit, I suspect the answer would look 
something like this:

Given the assertions that have been made about the likelihood of 
successfully creating a working group that would adopt and progress 
these documents, and given their nature, it seems that they would be 
reasonable candidates for AD sponsorship. In the context of the 
thumbnail sketch that has been building up on this list, I would expect 
that the sponsoring AD would work closely with the proposed i18n 
directorate to ensure that the proper level of review has taken place.

/a