Re: [Idna-update] [I18nrp] [art] Comments on draft-faltstrom-unicode11-02

[Patrik Fältström <[e-mail]>]

> On 9 Oct 2018, at 05:29, Suzanne Woolf <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 1. Updating the IDN parameters registry as the IAB requested. With apologies if I’m missing something, I don’t see the expert saying he can’t update the registry for some reason, or that there’s any ambiguity in what the update should be; it’s his judgment that “the right thing to do” about the code points that changed properties between Unicode 6.3 and Unicode 11 is consistent with what the standard tells him to do. So for the current situation, the standard, including the instructions to the expert, is adequate.

The key thing here is that I do not see myself have the competence in actually ensuring what I propose in the I-D is the correct thing to do. There are other alternatives as well, such as adding an exception to the IDNA2008 rule set.

IAB asked me to bring things forward, and my call is what I call path A:
A.1. Suggest a path forward
A.2. Ask IETF to ensure what I propose is the right thing.

This is btw what was done last time we had an incompatible change like this.

Alternatives could have been:

B. Be passive:
B.1. I ask IETF what to do with the incompatible changes (but do not suggest anything)
B.2. IETF tell me what to do

C. Have IAB make the call
C.1. IAB tell me not only to move things forward, but also “IAB have decided that the changes made in Unicode do not require backward compatible rules in IDNA2008”
C.2. I move things forward based on B.1.

FWIW, I did not interpret what IAB told me was “C” which I read in your note Suz. Maybe I misunderstand you.

Now, IF IAB really told me C, then can you please clarify?

   Patrik