Subject: Re: [Lucid] Problem statement and scope

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 22:28:21 -0400

Dear colleagues,

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:13:33AM -0500, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> Hello,
>  First item to agree is the problem statement and scope.  Do we have a concensus on this? Let me start some (on purpose wide) questions:
> - is the problem only limited to a few codepoints where the pre-composed and composed forms are not normalized appropriately?
> - are we tackling homoglyphs?
> - else?

In response to these questions (admittedly, somewhat longer after the
fact than we'd have liked), Asmus and I have put together a draft
outlining what we understand to be the issues.  It's at
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sullivan-lucid-prob-stmt/.

We'd like very much to have some discussion on the list prior to
Dallas.  If we go into the meeting in Dallas without the necessary
preparation, the BoF will not tell us what to do next.

I also really strongly encourage people to read
draft-klensin-idna-5892upd-unicode70 (which is currently at -03 but, I
understand, may become an -04 in the very near future).  There's a lot
of very helpful background in it.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:39:11 -0400

--On Monday, March 09, 2015 22:28 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> In response to these questions (admittedly, somewhat longer
> after the fact than we'd have liked), Asmus and I have put
> together a draft outlining what we understand to be the
> issues.  It's at
>...
> draft-klensin-idna-5892upd-unicode70 (which is currently at
> -03 but, I understand, may become an -04 in the very near
> future).  There's a lot of very helpful background in it.

Andrew, Thanks.  

draft-klensin-idna-5892upd-unicode70-04 is now awaiting posting.
Please don't bother with -03 -- the new version is a complete
rewrite, reflecting a very different understanding of the scope
and nature of the problem(s) compared to the one we had in early
January.

This version provides a much broader view of the problem than
its predecessor and explores some of the risks and solution
spaces.  WHile I recommend reading the whole thing, those who
don't intend to do so (it is about 24 pages of text exclusive of
references) may still benefit from a careful look at sections of
particular interest.   Those who decide to read it only in part
should include the introductory note in draft in their reading
-- it is important to understand what this version of the
document is... and isn't.

While we have been talking with Andrew, Asmus, and the members
of the IAB's I18n Program, this document was written
independently of the IAB Statement 
and the draft Andrews announces above (the other two may be a
bit less independent of it).  The documents represent different
perspective on the problem (including on the question of what
the problem actually is).   I hope that everyone who intends to
participate in the BoF will do so with awareness of both (or all
three) perspectives.

    john