Re: [I18nrp] Appropriate status for draft-faltstrom-unicode11-05

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Howdy,

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:03 AM Patrik Fältström <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 4 Dec 2018, at 22:18, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
> > The simplest way to do that, though, would be to mark 6452 as historic.
>
> I disagree. I think it is important to have it recorded that IETF for
> Unicode version 6.0 decided to explicitly follow the Unicode Standard. Just
> like this draft of mine when becoming an RFC says the same to Unicode
> 11.0.0.
>
> These two could be historic together with a complete new document
> replacing not only these two but also for example 5892.
>
> To conclude: after following the discussions my view is that even if this
> draft suggest not to update 5892, it could have done so, and because of
> that this draft of mine IS an update to 5892. Just like 6452 is.
>
> So, RFC 6452 says in section 2:

"No change to RFC 5892 is needed based on the changes made in
   Unicode 6.0."

Your draft comes to the substantially the same conclusion in  directing
IANA to update the tables to Unicode 11.  Given that, I don't see it
updates 5892.  It comments on it, and so it needs a reference, but it isn't
an update in my view.

This is also why i think Informational is the right status for documents
like these; if there is no change needed, the process can run without
requiring standards action.  That's clearly what the original IANA
considerations said, and I think that's right now.

I realize it is tedious to argue over this, but we're going to need a new
review by March at the latest, and I see no sign that these reviews will be
completely gone any time soon.

regards,

Ted


> But of course I will  as an author follow whatever the outcome of this
> discussion will be.
>
>    Patrik
>