Hi, no dispute on the consensus call. > the consensus call is over. Based on the discussion on the mailing list > the chairs believe that the consensus is to keep the current (-10) text > and not to go into the details of explaining the current far-from-ideal > state of arts in the area of Internalized Domain Names.
This is not true. The -10 draft does go into the details. It just doesn't do it very well. The references all stay the same in either version, with the exception of adding the ICANN resolution. The current text has four parentheticals in one paragraph. The proposed text is plain spoken and links to the right ICANN document. Basically, "people break the rules to use emojis, and also use old IDNA standards." I don't have an opinion on the CABF stuff, but it seems like that is what actually works. So, this document is inaccurate because it doesn't take a descriptive approach as it stands. > That said, we think that some points raised during discussion > may need to be addressed before the document is sent to the IESG [...] Yes, this is all correct. thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
