On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 08:15:06AM -0500, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: > well, there are issues that the original idn, and the later idnabis > working groups didn't examine as exhaustively as others, and to assume > that every issue related to i18n and/or l10n on or off the wire was > adequately addressed by one or both is very, very generous.
I don't think that anyone was supposing that. I was simply arguing that we can't re-open the entire protocol every time someone wants to write something that depends on it. If one thinks that IDNA2008 is broken or otherwise wrong, the right thing to do is to go write the IDNA2008 Considered Harmful draft, not to try to sneak those criticisms in through the back door of a pure clean-up document designed only to permit the use of IDNA2008 in the top level. If there is such a Considered Harmful draft floating about, then ICANN has the obligation to make decisions about whether to form its policy in light of that document. The IETF is about protocol, and all this document is trying to do -- and it is explicit about this -- is to relax (carefully) a restriction that may or may not have been understood somewhere as a protocol restriction. > That one was surfaced at the Mexico ICANN, with some bright young thing > dreaming of ".4u", presenting at least two problems in presumed policy > land. Note that .4u is still simply not allowed by RFC 1123 or by this draft. That is an all-ASCII label, not a U-label, and it is not alphabetic. Therefore, not allowed. If someone at ICANN wants to change that, s/he will need to write a draft. Or, of course, ignore the RFCs published by the IETF. I'm sure the people at the ITU would be happy with that latter outcome. A -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
