Re: Hasty attempt to create an IDN WG (Was: WG Review: Internationalized Domain Name (idn)
Harald, I'm lost, what BOF are you talking about? Cullen On Mar 4, 2008, at 6:19 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 04:32:08PM +0200, Jari Arkko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 21 lines which said: But it is quite common when we revise a specification that we have only an incomplete defect list. Or we may not have determined if a particular issue is really a defect. Understanding which specific issues have to be fixed is typically WG work in a bis spec effort. But it is not in the charter, quite the contrary. The proposed charter is written as if there was a consensus on the IDN problems (there is not, besides the limitation to Unicode 3.2 and may be the bidi). No work is planned to discuss the problems, only solutions are present in the charter, already decided even before the WG exists. The charter is an agenda item at the BOF. If there's consensus that you're right and the proponents are wrong, we can change it. Harald ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Hasty attempt to create an IDN WG (Was: WG Review: Internationalized Domain Name (idn)
Cullen Jennings skrev: Harald, I'm lost, what BOF are you talking about? This one: *WEDNESDAY, March 12, 2008 * *0900-1130 Morning Session I * Franklin 6/7APP idn Internationalized Domain Name BOF http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/idn.txt ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Hasty attempt to create an IDN WG (Was: WG Review: Internationalized Domain Name (idn)
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 04:32:08PM +0200, Jari Arkko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 21 lines which said: But it is quite common when we revise a specification that we have only an incomplete defect list. Or we may not have determined if a particular issue is really a defect. Understanding which specific issues have to be fixed is typically WG work in a bis spec effort. But it is not in the charter, quite the contrary. The proposed charter is written as if there was a consensus on the IDN problems (there is not, besides the limitation to Unicode 3.2 and may be the bidi). No work is planned to discuss the problems, only solutions are present in the charter, already decided even before the WG exists. The charter is an agenda item at the BOF. If there's consensus that you're right and the proponents are wrong, we can change it. Harald ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Hasty attempt to create an IDN WG (Was: WG Review: Internationalized Domain Name (idn)
On Mar 3, 2008, at 5:38 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: - Separate requirements for valid IDNs at registration time, vs. at resolution time This means casting in stone one specific approach, and a dangerous one.. And the discussions on the existing idna-update list show that the decision of exclusion is very difficult and quite arbitrary. The charter must not include such a rule. The posted version of the charter suggested this as the basis for the WG's efforts, AND says that the WG must verify the direction in a consensus call. I was involved in adding that language. Thus, it is not cast in stone. Do you oppose the formation of the WG, support it or ... ? I'm assuming it's not black or white, but as we gauge consensus on forming the WG, it would help to know whether you object to the formation of the WG in general, or wish to see a WG on this topic but want to help set it on the right course. thanks! Lisa Dusseault___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hasty attempt to create an IDN WG (Was: WG Review: Internationalized Domain Name (idn)
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 09:57:35AM -0800, The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 108 lines which said: Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by March 4, 2008. That's one week only, for the charter of a group which may change an important Standards Track format. These documents were tied to Unicode version 3.2 and an update to the current version (5.x) is required to accommodate additional scripts. That's certainly the most consensual reason to update IDN. Scripts like Tifinagh (in wide use today in North Africa) were introduced only in Unicode 5. But the rest of the charter is independant from this laudable goal and much more questionable. In addition, experience has shown a number of real or perceived defects or inadequacies with the protocol. Hold on. Is the WG really supposed to work on perceived defects? Either these defects are real or they are not. If they are not real, for instance, if they are FUD (this is quite common in the IDN arena), they should *not* be addressed by the WG. - Separate requirements for valid IDNs at registration time, vs. at resolution time This means casting in stone one specific approach, and a dangerous one. If the list of valid characters is used at registration time, later changes are easy because they are concentrated in the registry software. But if the resolvers start to have a list of valid characters, it will be impossible to change. (Upgrading all the resolvers take a lot of time.) Characters which were excluded will, in practice, never be allowed again. And the discussions on the existing idna-update list show that the decision of exclusion is very difficult and quite arbitrary. The charter must not include such a rule. Goals and milestones: Mar 08: WG Last Call for Overview/Rationale document The milestones also are an attempt to avoid any real discussion. We are already in March, the group does not exist and it would hold a Last Call in the next weeks? That's not serious. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Hasty attempt to create an IDN WG (Was: WG Review: Internationalized Domain Name (idn)
On 3 mar 2008, at 14.38, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: Hold on. Is the WG really supposed to work on perceived defects? Either these defects are real or they are not. If they are not real, for instance, if they are FUD (this is quite common in the IDN arena), they should *not* be addressed by the WG. I do not agree. I think it is important that the FUD (as you describe it) is described as being FUD somewhere, and not just by silence ignored by the IETF. We are trying to in the documents address all different kind of issues and explain them. See RFC 4690, which in reality is bootstrap for the work that is done. Patrik ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Hasty attempt to create an IDN WG (Was: WG Review: Internationalized Domain Name (idn)
Stephane, In addition, experience has shown a number of real or perceived defects or inadequacies with the protocol. Hold on. Is the WG really supposed to work on perceived defects? Either these defects are real or they are not. If they are not real, for instance, if they are FUD (this is quite common in the IDN arena), they should *not* be addressed by the WG. Right. But it is quite common when we revise a specification that we have only an incomplete defect list. Or we may not have determined if a particular issue is really a defect. Understanding which specific issues have to be fixed is typically WG work in a bis spec effort. And obviously, if a particular issue is mistakenly believed to be a problem, some additional explanation in the final spec may be useful to reduce future FUD. Jari ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Hasty attempt to create an IDN WG (Was: WG Review: Internationalized Domain Name (idn)
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 04:32:08PM +0200, Jari Arkko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 21 lines which said: But it is quite common when we revise a specification that we have only an incomplete defect list. Or we may not have determined if a particular issue is really a defect. Understanding which specific issues have to be fixed is typically WG work in a bis spec effort. But it is not in the charter, quite the contrary. The proposed charter is written as if there was a consensus on the IDN problems (there is not, besides the limitation to Unicode 3.2 and may be the bidi). No work is planned to discuss the problems, only solutions are present in the charter, already decided even before the WG exists. ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
