Subject: [apps-discuss] call for APPSAREA topics at IETF 79

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:45:58 -0600

If you would like to make a presentation on any apps-related topic
during the APPSAREA session at IETF 79, please contact me and Alexey, or
just post to the apps-discuss list.

Thanks!

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:10:07 -0400

--On Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:45 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> If you would like to make a presentation on any apps-related
> topic during the APPSAREA session at IETF 79, please contact
> me and Alexey, or just post to the apps-discuss list.

Peter and Alexey,

I'd like to take a few minutes to briefly discuss a small number
of incompatible property changes in Unicode 6.0 and what actions
the IETF should take, if any.  The relevant document for IDNA is
draft-faltstrom-5892bis-00.  Note that the change may affect
precis and other WGs and protocols that apply special
interpretations, preparations, or constraints on Unicode
strings.   Even if other standards are written in terms of
Unicode 6.0, they will probably need to provide a mechanism for
dealing with this sort of change.

The key question as far as IDNA is concerned is whether to add
one of the changed characters to an exception list, thereby
keeping it PVALID as it was for Unicode 5.2 or whether to let
the character track the correction in Unicode 6.0, thereby
making it DISALLOWED.  The exception list, known in
IDNA2008-speak as Rule G, was provided to deal with changes like
this one, but it was expected to be very infrequently used and
there are no characters in it today.

draft-faltstrom-5892bis-00 (a candidate for the "shortest I-D"
record) specifies the change needed to preserve the behavior of
the Unicode 5.2 rules, i.e., keeping the relevant character
"PVALID".  If we conclude that we want to track the change in
Unicode property behavior, no change is needed and the I-D can
be discarded.

     john

p.s. This note is deliberately as neutral as I was able to make
it about what should be done.  Similarly, the I-D was posted,
not to advocate a particular position but to have a document
available for discussion.