Re: [I18nrp] Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-unicode11-05.txt> (IDNA2008 and Unicode 11.0.0) to Informational RFC

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 08:56 +0100 Patrik Fältström
<paf=[e-mail]> wrote:

> 3. Registries should not "just" allow all PVALID (etc) code
> points, but also include a conservative registration policy
> 
> I do though not see (3) is in violation with other documents.
> It just emphasizes the same thing already said elsewhere. For
> example in the "troublesome characters" draft there is a
> suggestion on a method to use when developing one such policy.

It is also an existing requirement.  See discussion and
references in draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis but that I-D doesn't
actually change anything other than clarifying the existing
rules.   So, whether (3) should be said here may be
controversial unless it is clearly stated as restating rules
established elsewhere (a reference to
draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis would help with that, but
certainly is not essential).  On the other hand, if you were to
say anything about registry policies that changed that rule or
encouraged a belief that anything authorized by the 5892 rules
was ok, that would not only clearly update several other
documents but be very controversial.

     john

p.s. addressing another issue, I don't believe we've ever made a
document Historic that is part of the record of evolution of a
Standards Track specification that is not itself considered
Historic.   Even if we had, I think it would be really
unfortunate in this case.