Subject: Re: [iucg] Protocol-12

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 01:16:57 +0200

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-12.txt
John Klensin published the Draft above - he has the black magic which 
permits to format an I_D so it can be automatically accepted and 
broadcasted - what the IETF tools mailing list advised 
http://xml.resource.org/experimental.html does not allow us to do.

----
Dear John,

We have started analyzing the text.  Before committing we need to see 
the rationale and Pete Resnick's announced Draft. This is a Bank 
holidays in France (Just went a see "Star Treck 11" tonight, in order 
to keep adjusted). So, we agreed to relax our Internet PLUS work for 
one day or two and:

- try to use some of your wording if we can.
- address the non-LDH cases in our text (but we focuss on internet 
domain name for applications, not on the DNS)
- take time to rephrase a general initial explanation
- edit the whole text to make sure we removed everything related to 
semantic addressing, so it is 100% in the IETF strata.
- may be add one or two diagrams.

But  our two main points are not discussed yet (mapping/where and 
French language support). I think we also need to know the comments 
of the ASIWG.

Xavier Legoff has a pertinent remark: all the banned/retired 
ex-WG-IDNABIS members should benefit from the Hoffman/Costello's 
clause: "Hoffman and Costello were not and should not be held 
responsible for any errors or omissions."

Take care.
jfc

At 23:58 08/05/2009, John C Klensin wrote:
>Ok.
>
>Protocol-12 is now in the posting queue and should show up soon.
>This is mostly an editorial-smoothing draft, but I believe it
>captures all comments to date that either were reported on as
>having consensus or were discussed for a while and no dissent
>reported to proposed conclusions, with two major and
>interconnected exceptions, both noted in the text:
>
>(1) I have not addressed the mapping issues at all.  The text
>about it is more or less (probably identically) the same as what
>came into San Francisco.  I do not propose to make further
>changes here until we have rough consensus on at least the
>general flavor of a posted mapping document.
>
>(2) There have been several requests to make the language and
>section numbering of Sections 4 (registration) and 5 (lookup)
>exactly parallel.  As noted in the text, I'm not going to try to
>do that until we have settled enough on the mapping topics that
>I don't have to do it again after mapping materials and
>references are added or removed.
>
>Awaiting your comments...
>
>Rationale will follow as soon as it is ready.
>
>     john
>
>_______________________________________________
>Idna-update mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update