Hi Rob,
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.
The problem (as the chairs see it) is that if the document accurately
describes all the complexities of the current state of arts in this area,
then it will require quite a lot of new text with very little (if
any) benefit for implementers. It’s cute to know that people do break the rules
and use emojis,
but how does this knowledge help implementers to properly implement
matching IDNs against the names in certificates, which is performed using
A-labels?
The goal of this document is not to improve (or even just to
describe) the situation with IDNs, so the chairs believe that the WG decided to
stay apart
from these complexities and to say as little as possible about them.
I agree, that the -10 is probably not ideal and if the authors manage
to improve it (along the lines “silence is gold”),
for example using Viktor’s proposals from his last e-mail, it will be
great.
Regards,
Valery.
> 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
