Re: [Lucid] Problem statement and scope

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 11 March 2015 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: lucid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lucid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FB211A0025 for <lucid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sKsdBZPVLWgD for <lucid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D45871A0053 for <lucid@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:39:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.35] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1YVkbE-0000qy-HU; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:39:16 -0400
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:39:11 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, lucid@ietf.org
Message-ID: <E27153A287CB94506F29BE00@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150310022821.GK10131@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <A81A9FC9-9B62-4783-8C21-1ED462821835@viagenie.ca> <20150310022821.GK10131@mx1.yitter.info>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.35
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lucid/o4LVfd_gJcl83oL5RqEgu6VnCLk>
Subject: Re: [Lucid] Problem statement and scope
X-BeenThere: lucid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Locale-free UniCode Identifiers \(LUCID\)" <lucid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lucid>, <mailto:lucid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lucid/>
List-Post: <mailto:lucid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lucid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lucid>, <mailto:lucid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 17:39:23 -0000


--On Monday, March 09, 2015 22:28 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
<ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

> In response to these questions (admittedly, somewhat longer
> after the fact than we'd have liked), Asmus and I have put
> together a draft outlining what we understand to be the
> issues.  It's at
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sullivan-lucid-prob-stmt
> /.
>...
> I also really strongly encourage people to read
> draft-klensin-idna-5892upd-unicode70 (which is currently at
> -03 but, I understand, may become an -04 in the very near
> future).  There's a lot of very helpful background in it.

Andrew, Thanks.  

draft-klensin-idna-5892upd-unicode70-04 is now awaiting posting.
Please don't bother with -03 -- the new version is a complete
rewrite, reflecting a very different understanding of the scope
and nature of the problem(s) compared to the one we had in early
January.

This version provides a much broader view of the problem than
its predecessor and explores some of the risks and solution
spaces.  WHile I recommend reading the whole thing, those who
don't intend to do so (it is about 24 pages of text exclusive of
references) may still benefit from a careful look at sections of
particular interest.   Those who decide to read it only in part
should include the introductory note in draft in their reading
-- it is important to understand what this version of the
document is... and isn't.

While we have been talking with Andrew, Asmus, and the members
of the IAB's I18n Program, this document was written
independently of the IAB Statement 
and the draft Andrews announces above (the other two may be a
bit less independent of it).  The documents represent different
perspective on the problem (including on the question of what
the problem actually is).   I hope that everyone who intends to
participate in the BoF will do so with awareness of both (or all
three) perspectives.

    john