Re: idnabis WG documents

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

At 7:07 PM -0400 4/17/08, John C Klensin wrote:
>Paul, I clearly don't have any problems with the WG deciding on
>document structure.  I'm even happy to issue one last version of
>"rationale" as draft-klensin-idnabis-issues if that would make
>you (or others) more comfortable.

That would make me happy, thanks.

>But, from my point of view,
>fwiw, we have lost considerable time and momentum in the charter
>discussion process.

Fully agree.

>I'd really like to avoid, if possible,
>losing even more in weeks of further navel-gazing over document
>organization and structure.

I promise not to gaze into your navel if you promise not to gaze into mine. :-)

>I'm not trying to pre-empt
>anything, but I'd like to urge that we spend as much time as is
>really needed getting structural arrangements like document
>organization and naming straightened out as is really needed,
>but no longer.

Fully agree.

>In the interim, I think it is useful to record substantive
>conclusions (as distinct from procedural ones) that appear to
>have been reached during the charter discussion process in an
>I-D, however tentatively that is done, before we completely
>forget what was discussed. Do you disagree?

Nope, that's fine. For me, the highest priority for additions to your 
documents is adding the regular expressions for the context-dependent 
character rules. From our experience with finishing IDNA2003, I 
suspect that this will take a larger number of round trips of 
discussion than you expect.