Hi Ted, I'm responding to part of this and excerpting. > > There is no liaison information given; is the WG expected to maintain > a liaison to the Unicode Consortium or is the IETF liaison expected to > take on any new work as a result of this? (Obviously, there is a > serious > difference between work we can do based on already published or > otherwise agreed specifications and work which requires coordination). > Unicode experts have been participating in the work already, so this is even closer cooperation than having a liaison. If there turns out to be a need for a liaison, can IAB/liaisons/ADs/chairs do lazy evaluation then on whether the IETF liaison can/will handle it or if the WG needs to create one? >> Additional goals: >> >> - Separate requirements for valid IDNs at registration time, >> vs. at resolution time > > I think you need to define what "resolution time" means here. > For better or worse, IDNs now appear in authority sections of > URIs and not all of those are resolved at all. If what you mean > is "Separate requirements for valid IDNs in registration contexts, > in identifiers, and in relation to the wire format of DNS", then I > think you need three categories. That's quite possible. Is that level of detail required in the charter? I don't think there's consensus pre-WG about how to make requirements for IDNs in identifiers, but this is something a WG could reasonably tackle within the context of this charter -- in fact it's something that would be hard to decide how to approach before having a WG. >> >> The WG will work to ensure practical stability of the validity >> algorithms for IDNs (whether based on character properties or >> inclusion/exclusion lists). > > This is ambiguous. If this is meant to say that the WG can decide > after starting its work that it must abandon the character properties > design direction and go to inclusion/exclusion lists, then the > statement > above giving design direction needs to be changed. If this is meant > to say "backwards compatibility with X" what X is is not clear here. I think you're suggesting removing the parenthetical from the charter sentence. Question for others: does that lose something important? If so how can that be made compatible with the design direction that the charter suggests the WG needs to verify? thx, Lisa _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
