I do expect the authors to follow up with the IANA questions, but on the
main point:
I refer you to RFC 5892, section 5.1 and Appendix B:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5892#section-5.1
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5892#appendix-B
As well as the IANA registry referred to in that document:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/idna-tables-6.0.0/idna-tables-6.0.0.xhtml#idna-tables-6.0.0-properties
This is pretty much identical to what IDNA did. I agree that we should
probably recruit the expert (and I hope we can recruit the same expert
as the one for IDNA Derived Properties), but I don't think the task will
be tremendously burdensome, even though it sounds that way. The point of
"don't just copy Appendix A" is to account for the possibility that the
Unicode properties might be moving targets. But for the most part, it's
an act of checking that the properties are "as expected".
I will contact Patrik and see if he's willing.
pr
On 4/23/14 5:42 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I will move to a strong "yes" on this, once we have some discussion of
the registry defined in Section 9.1.
The registry created in Section 9.1 is very odd indeed. I guess IANA is
expected to assume that the format of the registry will look like the
non-normative table in the appendix, but Section 9.1 doesn't say what the
format of the registry will be. In general, I see that IANA has asked
several questions in its review, and those questions haven't been
responded to (and, unusually, the IANA review is in the IESG mailing list
archive but *not* in the document history in the datatracker). They
should be given a response.
But the real oddity here is that the specification of the registry
involves an *enormous* startup cost for the designated expert, *and*
requires that the DE be appointed and start her work immediately.
Normally, IANA takes the required actions as soon as the document's
approval is announced, but in this case they will have to wait for the DE
to be appointed and to derive the entire content of the registry.
It seems to me that the right way to have handled this would have been
for the working group to have engaged the appropriate experts and made
the table Appendix A *be* the initial contents of the registry, rather
than explicitly denouncing Appendix A and leaving it as a seemingly quite
onerous startup task that will delay the IANA actions indefinitely.
Why was it done this way, and what is the plan to get the registry
content specified in a reasonable time? Should approval of the document
wait for that content to be specified? Or are we really expecting to
approve the document with the content of the registry left open?
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
