Subject: Re: WG Review: Internationalized Domain Name (idn)

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:05:10 -0800

Hi Ted,

I'm responding to part of this and excerpting.
>
> There is no liaison information given; is the WG expected to maintain
> a liaison to the Unicode Consortium or is the IETF liaison expected to
> take on any new work as a result of this?  (Obviously, there is a  
> serious
> difference between work we can do based on already published  or
> otherwise agreed specifications and work which requires coordination).
>

Unicode experts have been participating in the work already, so this  
is even closer cooperation than having a liaison.  If there turns out  
to be a need for a liaison, can IAB/liaisons/ADs/chairs do lazy  
evaluation then on whether the IETF liaison can/will handle it or if  
the WG needs to create one?

>> Additional goals:
>>
>> - Separate requirements for valid IDNs at registration time,
>> vs. at resolution time
>
> I think you need to define what "resolution time" means here.
> For better or worse, IDNs now appear in authority sections of
> URIs and not all of those are resolved at all.  If what you mean
> is "Separate requirements for valid IDNs in registration contexts,
> in identifiers, and in relation to the wire format of DNS", then I
> think  you need three categories.

That's quite possible.  Is that level of detail required in the  
charter?  I don't think there's consensus pre-WG about how to make  
requirements for IDNs in identifiers, but this is something a WG  
could reasonably tackle within the context of this charter -- in fact  
it's something that would be hard to decide how to approach before  
having a WG.

>>
>> The WG will work to ensure practical stability of the validity
>> algorithms for IDNs (whether based on character properties or
>> inclusion/exclusion lists).
>
> This is ambiguous.  If this is meant to say that the WG can decide
> after starting its work that it must abandon the character properties
> design direction and go to inclusion/exclusion lists, then the  
> statement
> above giving design direction needs to be changed.  If this is meant
> to say "backwards compatibility with X" what X is is not clear here.

I think you're suggesting removing the parenthetical from the charter  
sentence.  Question for others: does that lose something important?   
If so how can that be made compatible with the design direction  that  
the charter suggests the WG needs to verify?

thx,
Lisa
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce