Re: [Gen-art] LC review: draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi-06.txt

John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Tuesday, October 06, 2009 07:07 -0400 Vint Cerf
> <vint@google.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Martin,
>>
>> in that case, let's see whether we have consensus around
>> simply explaining
>> that not all CS are permitted by BiDi and that both tables and
>> bidi rules are needed
>> to implement IDNA2008 as intended.
>>     
>
> To keep this in perspective, there are several other categories
> in the lists in Bidi from which only a very small number of
> characters are permitted by Tables.    In the case of CS, the
> "small number" is zero but, unless the readers understand that
> they need to go to Tables for specific permitted character
> information, they might be equally confused.
>
> So, IMO, the correct statement is something like "not all
> characters from the listed categories are permitted by BiDi
> and... as intended".    I don't think CS is special in that
> regard.
>   
I am now integrating changes suggested during Last Call review so that a 
new version can be emitted as soon as the IESG says "no other issues".

In response to this issue, I have added the following statement to the 
introduction:

The other normative documents in the IDNA2008 document
set establish criteria for valid labels, including listing the permitted
characters. This document establishes
additional validity criteria for labels in scripts normally written
from right to left.

I think that's what the document was saying all along, but it doesn't 
hurt to be over-explicit, especially given the reactions to "CS" that 
we've seen on the list.

Is that clear enough?
>     john
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update@alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
>   