Subject: Re: [idn] Document Status?

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 18:10:07 +0200 (CEST)

> Your note implies that the IESG does not agree that the current IDN 
> specification suffers the following, basic deficiencies:

Dave,

I did not intend any such implication.
In fact, my note says "after which the documents 
will be ready to be discussed by the IESG as a whole." i.e. the IESG has
not yet discussed these documents.
Hence the IESG has not expressed agreement or disagreement with your comments.

  Erik

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 09:29:22 -0700

>not yet discussed these documents.

Erik,

Thanks for the clarification.

The first paragraph of your note said that the IESG had discussed 
stringprep.  Having the IESG discuss that one document, without discussing 
it in the context of the others, did not seem possible.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:26:00 +0200 (CEST)

> it in the context of the others, did not seem possible.

Sorry for the confusion.

The stringprep document was done as a separate IETF wide last call
and it is going through the IESG review separately.
This split was made to limit the possibility that stringprep, which is
needed by other WGs such as ips, be unnecessarily held up due to
concerns with IDN(A).

Thus stringprep has been discussed by the IESG, and the other 3 documents
is on the IESG agenda for tomorrow.

  Erik

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 07:05:17 -0700

>needed by other WGs such as ips, be unnecessarily held up due to

cool.  tnx.

d/

----------