IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [idn] process

Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> Tue, 01 March 2005 23:59 UTC

Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25658 for <idn-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 18:59:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D6HD6-000F5o-EG for idn-data@psg.com; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 23:55:28 +0000
Received: from [193.201.200.34] (helo=tuschin.blackcatnetworks.co.uk) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D6HD5-000F5a-Qc for idn@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 23:55:27 +0000
Received: from grmarkham.plus.com ([80.229.30.161] helo=[192.168.1.100]) by tuschin.blackcatnetworks.co.uk with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1D6HD5-0003pB-00 for <idn@ops.ietf.org>; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 23:55:27 +0000
Message-ID: <4225A9A0.3020800@mozilla.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 11:55:12 +0000
From: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>
Organization: mozilla.org
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: idn@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [idn] process
References: <421B8484.3070802@vanderpoel.org> <20050223072837.GA21463~@nicemice.net> <D872CCF059514053ECF8A198@scan.jck.com> <421D8411.9030006@vanderpoel.org> <p06210208be4390618c81@[192.168.0.101]> <421E0D0C.2000309@vanderpoel.org> <p06210202be43c3888991@[192.168.0.101]> <E07CE813AD23B2D95DA0C740@scan.jck.com> <421E30F2.1040408@vanderpoel.org> <0E7F74C71945B923C52211F3@scan.jck.com> <421EA0C9.1010500@vanderpoel.org>
In-Reply-To: <421EA0C9.1010500@vanderpoel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on psg.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12 autolearn=no version=3.0.1
Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Erik van der Poel wrote:
> 1. Is this the right time to start working on Internet Drafts leading up 
> to new version(s) of the IDNA RFC(s)? If not, when?

IMO, no. Nothing like consensus has yet emerged. However, I feel that 
the way forward will become clear eventually - we aren't going round in 
circles. It's just a big issue.

Gerv

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email